Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 16 July.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (TROWSE BRIDGE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 16 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security position.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current state of security in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since I last answered questions in the House on 13 June two police officers have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. The Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for both murders. I know the House will join me in condemning these brutal murders and expressing our sympathy and sorrow to the families of the bereaved.
So far this year 275 people have been charged with serious offences, including 21 with murder and 26 with attempted murder, and 116 weapons, 6,021 rounds of ammunition and 4,0101b of explosives have been recovered. The explosive devices neutralised since 13 June included an 1,8001b bomb dismantled by the security forces in Newry on 2 July.

Mr. Proctor: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the aftermath of the security incidents to which he referred there have been disturbing reports of cuts in police resources. Will he assure the House that no cuts have been made and that, although a limit has been imposed on the amount of overtime worked by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the total number of police man-hours worked by the RUC has been maintained?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. Overtime is a bad guide. The RUC and its full-time reserve is now reaching a strength of 11,000 and has doubled in little more than nine years. The total number of man-hours worked by full-time officers during 1984–85, which is the best indicator of police effort, rose to its highest ever figure of 23·1 million hours.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new extradition treaty with the United States represents a significant blow to IRA terrorists who may be looking for a bolt hole?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. The new supplementary treaty which we have negotiated and which will soon, I hope, be coming before the United States Senate and this House will be a substantial help to us in dealing with terrorism, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the indispensable role of the part time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment, will the Secretary of State advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to maintain the part-time element at its present establishment?

Mr. Hurd: The exact figures and deployment are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Suite for Defence and the General Officer Commanding, but l have made clear from time to time, including in this House, the importance that I attach to the continued existence of the UDR.

Mr. William Ross: Given that the Secretary of State has to exercise a political judgment whenever we are faced with the problem of the routeing or the banning of parades which have an impact on the security situation, will he tell the House why it is that his political judgment has now created a situation in which there is disruption between those who normally support the police and the police force?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on a point of fact. I do not exercise a political judgment about the route of marches, nor have my predecessors. The law places that operational responsibility upon the police. That is how it is being handled this year, as in past years.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What progress has been made concerning the murder of 69 Protestants in County Fermanagh, for which no one has been made amenable in law?

Mr. Hurd: The figures for those convicted of terrorist offences in the Province as a whole this year so far show a marked increase on the figures for last year. There is always difficulty in bringing terrorists to justice. That is one reason why we are anxious to build up our security cooperation with the Republic and the United States, which was referred to in an earlier supplementary question. There are continuing real difficulties in bringing to justice those guilty of terrorist murder, but the figures show that we are tackling that problem.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what progress he has made in improving the conditions in border police stations, especially for the RUC personnel going to and coming from those police stations?

Mr. Hurd: There is a large spending programme designed to do that. It is designed to catch up with the backlog of work created by the rapid expansion of the RUC, for which I have already given the figures. We have some way to go, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, before we can be satisfied with the outcome. As he will know, in Newry in particular and other border areas, a good deal of work is going on.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend accept the terrible depression felt on both sides of the House, and indeed in the country, as more and more police are assassinated by the IRA? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we regularly see a shocking chronicle of photographs in the police magazine each month? Would it not be helpful to publicise those photographs in American magazines and daily newspapers to show the tragic way in which many brave members of the RUC have been murdered?

Mr. Hurd: That is a useful idea. It is very important that Americans, and particularly Irish Americans, realise that if they contribute funds that find their way into the pockets of the IRA, they are contributing to the murder overwhelmingly of Irishmen, particularly the gallant police officers to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State understand that the one proposition on which both traditions in Northern Ireland are agreed is that the authorities are incapable of making a decision and seeing it through? The bullying and violence are effective because Governments respond to them. I appreciate the difficult matters of judgment with which the police are being confronted, but will the Secretary of State urge upon senior police officers the fact that people in both traditions will watch events tomorrow and over the weekend to see whether lawlessness and the threat of lawlessness will pay off, and that the Government and the Opposition will give them every support in resisting it?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The RUC is well aware of the point that he makes. The Chief Constable and his colleagues have my full support in the difficult decisions that they continue to have to make.

Marches (Government Policy)

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now make a definitive statement of Government policy on marches in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hurd: The Government recognise the right of people in Northern Ireland to parade peacefully. Many such parades are held each year with no significant risk to public order. But a few are deliberately provocative and calculated to cause trouble, and others can cause difficulty because of the preferred route. In such circumstances, it is for the police to discuss the route with the organisers and if necessary for the police to order a change in the route on public order grounds. That is a decision for the RUC alone. If after considering the advice of the police it

appears to me that, with or without re-routeing, a parade is likely to cause serious public disorder, I may ban it. I fully support the Chief Constable's approach and I urge those who are involved in organising these parades to cooperate with the police and, of course, to obey the law.

Mr. Bell: We welcome the Secretary of State's definitive policy on that issue and the fact that there is a mix of political judgment and operational responsibility. The difference between the two has given the impression, as we have seen today, that the Government are dithering on the issue. We are grateful for that explanation of the Government's policy. However, can the Secretary of State give us any idea of the magnitude of police resources that have to be committed to controlling marches and parades in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. During 1984 there were more than 2,240 parades, at which some 39,000 police officers were deployed. The estimated cost of that policing effort was more than £2 million.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In the light of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, will he explain why on 3 February, 5 May, 15 May, 16 May and 23 June this year there were five illegal Sinn Fein/IRA parades through Toomebridge, yet no action was taken? At that time a shot was fired from the hotel, but because of the thinness of the police on the ground, the police were held back by an unruly mob, and it was only later that the gun that was used to fire at the police was recovered.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these matters come under the enforcement of the law and are for the RUC to deal with. I am sure that he has already given his version of the events of those days, or has encouraged other witnesses to give their versions, to the RUC.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the police handling of parades in Northern Ireland at present reveals many contradictions in policy? For example, why is it right to re-route a parade in Portadown tomorrow and on Saturday, whereas it was wrong to re-route last Sunday? Why was it right to prevent an Orange parade going through a Catholic housing estate in Cookstown last week, and why will it be allowed to go through that estate tomorrow? Why is it right to ban a parade in Castlewellan —and rightly so—because it is 95 per cent. Catholic, but not to do so in Pomeroy, which is also 95 per cent. Catholic? What is the basis on which these decisions are taken? Is it, as it should be, the susceptibilities of citizens along the route, or is it simply a question of which side will cause the most trouble, which is how it appears? If that is the policy, that is surrendering the ground to the men of violence on all sides.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's question illustrates one of the difficulties. People in both communities sometimes find it difficult to recognise a reasonable compromise when they see one. The RUC must make decisions on re-routeing place by place and parade by parade after taking account of all the local factors. That is what it is doing, and it is increasingly recognised that the RUC is handling the situation with much common sense.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I support the comments made earlier from the Opposition Front Bench, but should not


the message go out from both sides of the House that those responsible for organising marches in Northern Ireland, from whichever side they come, should abide by the decisions of the RUC and the Chief Constable? If necessary, the Secretary of State should tell them that that is what we expect this coming weekend.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The more I listen to views, particularly private views, on this subject, the more sure I become that in Northern Ireland it is possible to celebrate a battle or a tradition without provoking or humiliating those who do not belong to that tradition. That must be the right way to handle the matter.

Mr. Proctor: When my right hon. Friend defended the highlighting of re-routeing the last time he answered Northern Ireland questions, he referred to the amount of police time used to protect marches which could have been released for other security functions. Following the highlighting of re-routeing, has police time involved in marching activities increased or decreased?

Mr. Hurd: I gave the very substantial figures for last year. If, when the Chief Constable re-routes a parade or, as in the case of Castlewellan, I ban it, and the organisers in some way defy that, police resources must then be deployed to apply the law. The right answer is for the police and the organisers to reach agreement on a sensible route. That is done in a very large number of cases, and when that happens police resources and the expenditure on policing such a parade are greatly reduced.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that when the men of north Armagh tomorrow try to walk into Portadown over the route which they and their forefathers have traversed since 1796, they will be motivated not by any desire to break the laws of their country but by a sense of historic necessity to express, as they have always done, their legitimate pride in the possession of their lands and liberties? They know instinctively that they survive only by their solidarity and determination. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless that is understood, the people who will be dealt with tomorrow will be dealt with, not in a manner likely to maintain the peace, but in one likely to lead to a breach of it?

Mr. Hurd: Solidarity and determination are admirable qualities, but if the hon. Gentleman is saying that they can be expressed in Northern Ireland or in Portadown only by the attempt to assert, against the law, the traditional route which originally ran through green fields and now runs past houses occupied almost overwhelmingly by Catholics, he is making a case that is incomprehensible, to use a mild word, everywhere outside the Unionist community?

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree that if we all insisted on doing precisely what our forefathers had done, all kinds of frightening things would be happening in the world? Does he remember that when I spoke in the debate on the renewal of the emergency provisions I pleaded with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) not to engage in these provocations? Is it not a fact that when a leading figure makes it clear that there is an issue at stake in whether a parade goes through an area and then provokes the people in that area, the Member concerned is deliberately trying to provoke trouble when we are trying to stop it?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apply the same morals and lessons to those whose company he frequents and favours in the North. The respect for the law, the sensitivities, the rights and the lives of others whom he exemplified in his question is not always evident in their actions.

Mr. Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sight of a Union flag, a poppy or any other expression of British identity is seen as provocative by many supporters of the SDLP and Sinn Fein? Does he recognise that the banning or re-routing of traditional, Orange and Loyalist peaceful parades can contribute only to the establishment of anti-British ghettos, where the forces of the Crown are unwelcome and people are unable to express their loyalty to the constitution and the Crown?

Mr. Hurd: One of the problems is that there are many symbols in Northern Ireland and many people in both communities who are determined to provoke and be provoked. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, with his record and his view, believes that Northern Ireland can make progress out of its many difficulties if, in either community, it is felt that the only way to preserve identity or solidarity is to do and say things designed to humiliate others.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Do the figures which the Secretary of State has given us show how much police time was involved in dealing with parades that were not notified? Is any record kept of unnotified parades? Will he acknowledge that the interference of self-appointed protectors outwith the United Kingdom have done more than anything else to inflame the attitude of Loyalists, at this time of the year, towards parades?

Mr. Hurd: I understand that point. I do not have the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked. By definition, it is difficult to have figures on meetings or gatherings that are not notified, but I shall look into the matter.

Terrorism (Evidential Proof)

Mr. Maginnis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the difficulties faced by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in obtaining evidential proof sufficient to satisfy the courts of the guilt of individuals believed by the police to be involved in terrorist activities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the difficulties which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has in obtaining such evidence, but we remain convinced that it is right that alleged terrorists should be brought before the courts for trial against an evidential standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister telling us that he will take no new steps to ensure that known terrorists do not continue to avoid justice in Ulster, are able to continue their murder on our streets and, indeed, to bring murder to the streets of Great Britain, as some recently have intended? Does the Minister admit that since the Bennett report that which in Great Britain has been accepted as a normal interpretation has been substituted in Ulster for a process more akin to the cosy interview?

Mr. Scott: I do not agree with that last comment. The figures given by my right hon. Friend earlier show the


success which the security forces have had in arresting and charging people and bringing them before the courts. We must understand that terrorists are determined to undermine law and order. That is their principal objective. If we move away from strict standards in enforcing the law we shall be doing their job for them.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that as surely as night follows day the House will in the fullness of time have the common sense to reintroduce capital punishment for terrorism in response to public demand? When that day comes, will it not be necessary to ensure that the people concerned have a proper trial? Is my hon. Friend aware that nothing will convince me that those who have escaped from the Maze prison have not struck and killed again?

Mr. Scott: On recent evidence I see no possibility that the House will be prepared to reintroduce capital punishment for murder, even for terrorist offences. To give a personal view, I do not believe that its reintroduction would increase stability in Northern Ireland.

Lear Fan Project

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about the winding-up of the Lear Fan project.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Since the events described in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on 3 June, the company has filed under the appropriate United States bankruptcy code and the United States courts have appointed an interim trustee to administer the company's assets in the United States.
The receiver appointed by Her Majesty's Government has not yet completed his review and assessment of the assets of the company. Until he has, it will not be possible to estimate how much might be recovered.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: From that answer, should I conclude that something might be salvaged from the company's liquidation? In view of the large sums of public money lost in De Lorean and now in Lear Fan, what lessons can be drawn from these unhappy stories, and in particular how can we improve monitoring the use of public money?

Dr. Boyson: About £4 million was saved through the company going into liquidation at that time. We trust that more will be saved. That money would have been spent if the company had continued to trade.

Mr. Skinner: The old story.

Dr. Boyson: It is a new story as well as an old story, and the hon. Gentleman should listen to the new story. Any Government of any colour investing in Northern Ireland must make two decisions about helping companies from abroad. The first is to assess how much private money is involved or whether it will all come from Government.

Mr. Skinner: Market forces.

Dr. Boyson: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will hear about market forces. At first Lear Fan operated largely with Government money, then, for every £2 of

private money, £1 of Government money was used. At the end all the money was private. It is vital for more private money to be invested at the beginning of such projects.
We should be careful when dealing with risk enterprises at the frontiers of technology which no one wants to back in their countries of origin. We should look for blue chip companies which already have good products. That is what we want in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the appalling unacceptable embarrassing, unpalatable and terrible truth that violence does pay in Northern Ireland when Governments insist in backing projects such as Lear Fan and De Lorean for which no commercial plan works? Is it not about time that the Government reviewed their policy? Why has the Minister refused, despite repeated requests from the Opposition, to come to the Dispatch Box to make a full statement and to stand hon. Members' questioning? After all, £50 million of public money is involved.

Dr. Boyson: I enjoyed the exercise in adjectives at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. He certainly deserves a CSE grade 1. The answer to the second part of his supplementary question is that much Government money has helped companies, including—in the far past —when the Labour party was last in office. That has continued under the present Government, and about three quarters of new jobs in Northern Ireland last year resulted from the activities of companies owned abroad which had been encouraged by the Government of Northern Ireland to invest in the Province.

Mr. Couchman: Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that, notwithstanding the polemics of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), his Department will not lose sight of the fact that money will have to continue to be poured into Northern Ireland's industry to regenerate the economy there and to provide the employment which will, more certainly than anything else, take the gunmen off the streets?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that outside investment comes into Northern Ireland. It is similarly vital that small businesses there should grow, and we shall give every encouragement to that. I remind the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that a reduction in violence encourages people to invest in the Province.

Mr. Bell: Has the Minister been able to resolve the question whether the assets of Lear Fan Jet, by way of blueprints and plans, are vested in the United States corporation and can, therefore, be developed by another American company, to the detriment of the British taxpayer?

Dr. Boyson: That matter has concerned us all, and lawyers are looking into it. I cannot, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman a straight yes or no answer. It has been obvious for some time that the patent rights are ours and will be for a time. As soon as I can give the House a definitive answer on that, I shall be delighted to do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman happy about the role played by the nominees of the IDB on the boards of such companies? Surely, if these men are doing their work properly, they can raise the alarm sooner about companies going wrong.

Dr. Boyson: There were two nominee directors on the Lear Fan board, appointed by the Government through various Departments. Warnings were given. However, if we had pulled the skids from under Lear Fan and not put the money in, we could have been sued because there was a tight agreement for every penny. We could also have been sued for breaking our word, and that could have cost us a lot more. We were warned about that and we told the directors about it. Eventually the decision was made by the company to cease trading, and that saved us much more money than would have been the case had we come out and had to pay for nothing at the end.

Devolution

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to rolling devolution for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The Northern Ireland Act 1982 continues to offer a flexible and practical framework for devolving powers to representatives of the Northern Ireland constitutional parties. The crucial requirement for any scheme for a devolved administration is that it should command widespread acceptance throughout the community.

Mr. Hunter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I ask him to clarify matters still further, first by refuting the charge that, in relation to rolling devolution, he is merely paying lip-service to the ideals of his predecessor, and, secondly and more positively, by asserting that the concept and implementation of rolling devolution is central to his overall strategy for the Province?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, and we must not lose sight of the aims of the 1982 Act. If the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland could bring themselves to reason together on these constitutional matters, they would be doing Northern Ireland a great service, and I shall use what weight I have to move them in that direction.

Mr. Maclennan: Is there the slightest evidence that the constitutional parties share the Government's view as to the desirable objectives in this matter?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, there is the slightest evidence if one reads their published documents. We must now turn that slight evidence into something more positive and definite.

Cross-Border Co-operation

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border cooperation between the Province and the Irish Republic.

Mr. Hurd: The two Governments are on good terms and seek to co-operate closely on matters where their interests coincide. Cross-border co-operation on security is particularly valuable. There is certainly scope for improvement, and such improvement must be one of our main aims.

Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State accept that the recent re-routing of Protestant marches in Catholic areas will be a setback to British-Irish relations in Northern Ireland? Will he also accept that such action is the best recruiting sergeant for the Provisional IRA and Noraid in

America? In future, will he consider banning such provocative marches, rather than backing down to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is concerned with cross-border co-operation.

Mr. Stanbrook: If we can persuade the Government of the United States to deprive terrorists of immunity from extradition, why cannot we similarly persuade the Government of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Hurd: The courts of the Irish Republic have shown in the McGlinchy case and the Shannon case a greater awareness than in the past of the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing. We would like to move further in that direction.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State recall the controversy that arose a few weeks ago when the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary alleged that explosives used in the bomb that killed four police personnel at Kileen originated in the Irish Republic? Has co-operation between the police forces of the two parts of Northern Ireland established whether that explosive originated in the Irish Republic? Did the large amount of explosives found in Newry a few days ago also originate from the Republic?

Mr. Hurd: The investigation into the Kileen bombing is continuing. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the main areas of cross-border co-operation, as I see it. The Provisional IRA has large quantities of home-made explosives available to it. Some of the material is converted into explosives in the North and much of it is converted in the South. This is an area where co-operation and concerted action essential.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that cross-border security is causing a great deal of confusion? We are told that co-operation is valuable and close, but we are also told that the heads of the two police forces will not talk to each other and that Dublin politicians reject any suggestion that Northern Ireland terrorists are enjoying refuge in the Republic-. Can my right hon. Friend help to throw some light on this confusion?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know whether there is a great deal of confusion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have often said, the experience is a mixed one. Security co-operation between the two countries is valuable and it should be improved. One form of improvement would be for meetings to take place between the RUC and the Garda at the most senior level as a matter of course.

Newry

Mr. Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been invested in Newry in each of the last four years.

Dr. Boyson: Public expenditure within the Northern' Ireland block is not determined on a geographical basis, and it is not possible to identify separately all expenditure in Newry.
I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, provide my hon. Friend with a tabular statement in the Official Report of certain expenditure over the last four years which has gone to Newry town and Newry and Mourne district.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, as far as it goes. However, on the evidence that I saw, there are many new buildings, including arts centres, theatres, sports stadiums and swimming pools, in Newry. Does he agree that towns of a similar size in the north-east of England, such as Guisborough in my constituency, could well do with some resources directed towards them and away from Northern Ireland?

Dr. Boyson: If my hon. Friend is concerned about expenditure in his area, he should take up the matter with the relevant Ministers. There is a separate Northern Ireland block and that is the basis on which decisions are made. Newry is an area of high unemployment. The last check revealed an unemployment rate of 31·5 per cent.—

Mr. Holt: That is not as high as in my constituency.

Dr. Boyson: There are many other difficulties in Newry and we have given priority to law and order in

£000



1981–82
1982–83
1983–84
1984–85


Selective Financial Assistance to Industry*
633
865
5,063
3,935


IDB Factory Building*
105
833
673
562


Newry Government Training Centre (New Works and capital equipment)*
55
129
21
79


Tourism*
—
—
—
21


Roads†
2,752
3,187
4,531
5,282


Water &amp; Sewerage‡
2,724
2,932
3,316
3,614


Historic Monuments &amp; Buildings†
24
29
24
72


Works Service*
—
4
96
198


NI Housing Executive*
3,500
5,600
4,800
5,400


Grants to Housing Associations*
—
—
—
297


NI Railways*
—
—
—
223


Ulsterbus Limited*
—
—
—
55


Education &amp; Library Board Capital Expenditure†
327
870
678
367


Voluntary Schools†
724
1,088
1,466
1,829


Voluntary Youth Projects†
—
54
239
15


Sport, Recreation &amp; the Arts†
421
439
626
287


Health &amp; Personal Social Services (Capital Expenditure)*
158
113
162
1,125


Newry &amp; Mourne District Council Capital Expenditure (Gross)†
1,227
1,474
2,606,000
1,650


* Figures for town of Newry.


† Figures for Newry &amp; Mourne District Council Area.


‡ Figures for Newry sub-division of Water Service includes Newry &amp; Mourne and Banbridge DC areas.

IRA (American Assistance)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, when he last met the United States ambassador, he discussed assistance from American citizens to the Irish Republican Army.

Mr. Hurd: I saw the ambassador on 28 June and our confidential discussion ranged widely.
I have no doubt about the United States Government's opposition to those who support terrorism. They have discouraged Americans from contributing funds to organisations supporting terrorist groups and have shown themselves ready to see action taken against those who break the law.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming the views of this country that no funds should be given by Irish Americans to the IRA. Will he make it clear that the attitudes and activities of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in effectively supping with the devil in attending many meetings with supporters of the IRA in America and seemingly enjoying the hospitality of Noraid do not help this country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that these activities bring the

Northern Ireland. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is the right policy. Expenditure has been directed also to promote industrial development and to replace bad housing.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn the Provisional IRA and other terrorists for continuing their attacks on human life and property in the Newry area? The necessary investment in the Newry area cannot take place while the attacks continue.

Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. On 28 February nine people were killed in Newry as a result of a mortar attack. If we can extend law and order more effectively throughout the Province there will be a considerable saving of expenditure as well as of life.

Following is the statement:

views of Parliament very much into ill-repute? Will he condemn that behaviour and confirm that the rest of the country will not tolerate it?

Mr. Hurd: I have no knowledge of or any responsibility for the activities of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Anyone who goes to the United States and is in any way beholden to Noraid should be well aware of the connection with Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Health and Social Services Boards

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Belfast, North by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on 19 June, Official Report, column 146, if he will give the reasons for not placing the full accounts and auditors' reports for the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland in the Library.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 19 June, but if there is


any particular matter about which he is concerned I shall have it followed up if he will let me have the appropriate details.

Mr. Walker: In view of the disquieting reports of the serious malpractices in the Royal Victoria hospital, especially in the laundering, quartering, transport, security and catering divisions, does the hon. Gentleman agree that by not taking action to publish the health and social services reports he will arouse suspicion that there is a cover-up in his Department?

Mr. Patten: There is no question of any concealment. We follow exactly the same practices as the rest of the United Kingdom. The auditors' report on each of the health boards is made available to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he reports to Parliament on the summary of accounts.

Mr. Archer: Does the Under-Secretary of State have any plans for dealing with the crisis which now obtains at the Royal Victoria hospital through staff cuts and especially in relation to medical reports—which cannot be traced because they are lying about on the floor—and security, which is so starved of resources that the staff are physically in danger.

Mr. Patten: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the courtesy when he visited the Royal group of hospitals the other day to agree to meet the chairman of the board as well as the NUPE shop stewards, he would have heard that the Royal Victoria hospital has a budget of £84 million a year, that it is one of the most expensive hospital sites in the country and that we are doing a good deal to try deal with the records. For example, the board has appointed summer relief staff. Unfortunately so far, the organisation and methods study into medical records, which could bring about a great improvement, has been blocked by the trade unions.

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take following the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland on the health and social services board accounts, about financial procedures in the north and west Belfast districts of the eastern board.

Mr. Chris Patten: The north and west Belfast district is now reorganised into three units of management, new senior staff are in post and new systems are being introduced. The board is providing regular progress reports on these matters to the Department. I note in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report for 1983–84 that he accepts that a determined effort has been and continues to be made to improve the position.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the information that those steps have been taken. Is he satisfied that such steps will deal with the misuse of overtime and other abuses at the hospital? Will this release more funds for patient care? May we assume that the clique of Republicans, who have been using the system in the royal to deny this money to the patients, will continue?

Mr. Patten: Those are the objectives of the management which is attempting to ensure that the Royal Victoria, like every other hospital in the United Kingdom, lives within its budget.

Mr. Archer: Is it in order for the Under-Secretary of State to mislead the House by suggesting that I

discourteously refused to see the chairman of the eastern health board, when the contrary is true? I was anxious to see the chairman, but, understandably, he was not in a position to see me. I tried to see him.

Mr. Patten: If what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is correct, I shall certainly withdraw what I said. I understood that the chairman of the board had turned up at the hospital to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but that the right hon. and earned Gentleman had failed to meet him.

Mr. Archer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to everyone.

Terrorism

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any new proposals to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hurd: Terrorism can be eradicated only by steadily applying firm security policies operating under the law. This needs the support of the whole law-abiding community in Northern Ireland and the co-operation of the police forces of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. The measures taken need to be flexible and constantly adapted to stay one step ahead of the terrorists.

Mr. Dubs: Why will the Secretary of State not accept that what would undermine the IRA in Northern Ireland and its political supporters more than anything else is a successful conclusion to the talks between London and Dublin and for the Republic to have a significant say in the affairs of Northern Ireland? That is the possibility that causes so much apprehension in the minds of the IRA, so why will the Minister not accept it?

Mr. Hurd: It is wholly naive to suppose that those who are killing their fellow citizens will be turned into decent citizens just because some agreement is reached between London and Dublin. There is everything to be said for an agreement, but the hon. Gentleman does the case no service by exaggerating it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce unemployment is to lighten the burden of taxes and interest rates on employers and employed alike by sensible and firm control of public spending? Is she aware that the success of Government policies is evidenced by new factories and shops as well as a new road, a new railway and a new hospital to be built in Bolton?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholly with my hon. Friend and I am very pleased that our firm policies have borne such excellent fruit in his constituency.

Mr. Kinnock: Did the Prime Minister remind her colleagues at this morning's Cabinet meeting that, since she came to office, public spending has risen by a record 16·5 per cent., and did she tell them whether they should complain or boast about that record, as they do not seem to know?

The Prime Minister: At this morning's meeting the Cabinet confirmed the public expenditure totals published in the Red Book of £139 billion for 1986–87 and £144 billion for 1987–88. Our objective is to try to reduce public spending as a proportion of national income. Public spending as a proportion of national income hit a peak under the Labour Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister intend to achieve that by cutting investment, or by cutting current expenditure on, for instance, benefits? Does she intend to continue the course which, depite the pleas of the CBI, has brought cuts of 6 per cent. on repairs, 6 per cent. on roads and 54 per cent. on housing, while running a budget that has increased taxation as a proportion of gross national product from 36 to 42 per cent.? Which of those records is she proud of?

The Prime Minister: Public expenditure this year is £134 billion. As I have said, it will be £139 billion next year. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, within the totals certain programmes have priority. Health and pensions, in particular, have had priority. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we have protected capital expenditure. When the Labour Government had to reduce expenditure enourmously at the instance of the International Monetary Fund the then Chief Secretary, now Lord Barnett, said that
it was politically easier to cut capital than to cut current expenditure".
and that under the Labour Government.
The misery was shared out although the cuts disproportionately affected capital rather than current expenditure, as was invariably the case.
The Labour Government cut capital expenditure. We have increased it.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady is misleading the House, even on her own figures. If she will look at her own White Paper on public expenditure, she will discover that the overall capital programme in real terms is down from £20 billion to £19 billion over the past six years. Will the right hon. Lady now tell us the answer to the question whether the Conservative party should be boasting or complaining about the 16·5 per cent. rise in public spending? Should it be complaining or boasting about the 6 per cent. rise in the share of GNP on taxation? Is the right hon. Lady proud of spending, or is she proud of cutting? Is she an Iron Lady—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: Conservative Members are only delaying things. I was asking the Prime Minister whether she is proud of her record as a spender, or as a cutter. Is she an Iron Lady or is she a closet fiexi-toy?

The Prime Minister: Compared with the Labour Government's record, all members of my Government and Back Benchers should be proclaiming this Government's record with great pride. In practice, the last Labour Government — [Interruption.] In practice —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to hear the answer.

The Prime Minister: In practice, the last Labour Government cut expenditure on hospitals by 35 per cent. Capital expenditure on hospitals is now up by 23 per cent. Labour cut expenditure on roads by 33 per cent. The Conservatives have now put it up by 25 per cent. Labour cut capital expenditure on water by 29 per cent. Last year we put it up. The Labour Government's record was appalling.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Do not the last two questions by the Leader of the Opposition indicate that, to his usual gift of loquacity, he has now added economic schizophrenia?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his astute observation.

Mr. Dalyell: When the Prime Minister talked of flexitoys, which of her distinguished colleagues did she have in mind?

The Prime Minister: None of mine; some of those on a certain Bench below the Gangway who are prepared to attune their policies to every by-election, whatever constituency it may be.

Mr. Dover: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dover: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to pay tribute to those involved in the repair work to the M1 in Hertfordshire, and particularly the contractors? Will she respond positively to the calls by the TUC and CBI for more road repair work?

The Prime Minister: I gladly congratulate all those who have virtually completed the repair work on the M1 ahead of time. I congratulate those who did the work, and my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport who arranged it so excellently.
May I point out that spending on major motorway repairs is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who asked the question has a right to hear the reply.

The Prime Minister: The M1 is a splendid example of the fact that, since 1978–79, spending on major motorway repairs has increased by more than 50 per cent. in real terms.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister have any idea of the consequences for district health authorities of the Government's failure to meet the full bill for the desirable increase in nurses' pay? Does she accept that it will involve ward closures, cuts in services and the postponement of equipment purchase on a massive scale? Does she agree that if we will the end of increasing nurses' pay, we should provide the means for the NHS to meet the bill?

The Prime Minister: This Government have provided far more in real terms than did the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was such a proud member. The Labour Government cut the National Health Service budget in real terms in two years. The expenditure must be met either from the enlarged budget during this Administration, or through increased taxation. Which would the right hon. Gentleman choose? If it is met by


increased taxation, we would be taking money out of people's pockets and losing the jobs which the expenditure of that money would have created.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to require foreign diplomats in this country to pay their parking fines should be welcomed? Does she also agree that it should be extended so that diplomats in Britain either obey the rest of our laws or are sent home?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's views and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the very firm stand that he has taken.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 July

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Can the Prime Minister say whether, after six years of her Government, the British people have derived any benefit from North sea oil?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. First, they have derived a great deal of benefit in income, which has been pumped straight out into services such as the National Health Service and law and order. The money has gone straight into the annual budget and straight out again. The income has enabled us gradually to replace that asset with overseas assets, which will continue to bring in income long after North sea oil has gone. When we came to power, overseas assets were worth £12 billion; now they are worth £76 billion. They regularly produce income in interest and dividends and give us a high invisible surplus to add to our balance of payments.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice this week about the role of television and television news reports in perpetuating violence, does my right hon. Friend believe that there is now a case for a broadcasting council?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I am always prepared to consider that. I very much welcome what the Lord Chief Justice said and I hope that the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority will take note of it. The amount of violence that is seen on television is bound to have an effect on those least able to adjudge it.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Leighton: Can the Prime Minister explain why all the pundits and commentators now say that she is no longer an asset to the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: In that case, I wonder why the hon. Gentleman attacks me so fiercely.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she is much better off relying on the views of the thousands of paid-up members of the Conservative party in my constituency than on her reputation among what the hon. Gentleman calls the media pundits? Now that we can look back at the Brecon and Radnor by-election dispassionately, does she agree that the MORI poll —although that company is now discredited—undoubtedly had a considerable effect on the outcome? Notwithstanding the fact that media hype is part of the stock in trade of the Liberal party, should we not reconsider, as do other European countries, the role of opinion polls in public elections?

The Prime Minister: Doubtless hon. Members will wish to consider that policy. As my hon. Friend is aware, it has never been any part of my policy to put undue constraints on those matters unless there is considerable reason for doing so.

Dr. David Clark: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the report of the bombing and sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland? I realise that Greenpeace has embarrassed many people, but it has harmed none. Will she cable Prime Minister Lange and tell him that if he wishes we shall offer them all the facilities of the British services to try to track down the people who perpetrated that crime?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman expresses. It is a matter for the New Zealand police. We await the outcome of the inquiries. If they ask for help, of course we shall consider giving it.

Mr. Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of Question Time?

Mr. Parry: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I was not called on question No. 3—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member was not called on question No. 3, but he was called on question No. 7. I think that he asked the supplementary question that he intended for question No. 3. I cannot help him. He was out of order.

Mr. Parry: As I received no reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising directly out of Prime Minister's Questions. You are renowned for your generosity and kindliness. [Interruption.] I am not after a job. In view of that, I wonder whether you could arrange for the Prime Minister to be sent on a long sabbatical, because she is obviously tiring. She would then have a chance to rethink all her policies.

Mr. Speaker: Thankfully, we are all going on a long sabbatical soon.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JULY — Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day). (Second part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on the funding of pay awards in the National Health Service, on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Social Democratic and Liberal parties.
Remaining stages of the Oil and Pipelines Bill. Consideration of Lords amendments to the Trustee Savings Banks Bill.
TUESDAY 16 JULY—Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1982–83 (House of Commons Paper No. 504); the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 478); the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1983–84 (House of Commons Paper No. 448); and the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 449).
WEDNESDAY 17 JULY — Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Rate Reduction (City of Edinburgh District) 1985–86 Report.
Motion on the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Estimates Day (4th Allotted day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on Estimates relating to export promotion. The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes and Estimates.
Remaining stages of the Insolvency Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 19 JULY—Motions on the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order; The Nursing Homes and Nursing Agencies (Northern Ireland) Order; and the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order.
MONDAY 22 JULY — Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill and the Interception of Communications Bill and any Lords amendments which may be received to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, Etc.) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will wish to know Mr. Speaker, that subject to progress of business it is hoped to propose that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment on Friday 26 July until Monday 21 October.

Estimates to be considered Thursday 18 July:

Class IV, Vote 4 (Export Promotion, Trade Cooperation, Corporate and Consumer Affairs):

Section A (Export Promotion) and Section B (Trade Cooperation) so far as they relate to United Kingdom trade with China.

Mr. Kinnock: Yesterday, on a point of order, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr.

Kaufman) raised the fact that the Home Secretary had slipped through in a written answer an announcement on the Government's changes in the immigration rules. As a parliamentarian himself, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be much more appropriate to make a full statement to the House so that the Home Secretary could be questioned immediately on a matter of major constitutional and human concern to many thousands of people in Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman make up for the omissions of the Home Secretary and arrange an early debate in Government time so that we can give full consideration to a matter which is shabby and unjust and a cause of great anxiety to thousands of families in Britain?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science on teachers' pay as we are at the end of school terms and the Secretary of State has not been effective in dealing with an increasingly grave matter?
May I press the right hon. Gentleman to provide time for a debate on the Government's attitude towards South Africa? Does he agree that the mounting domestic repression in that country, the change in the attitude of the United States Congress, the recent revelations about the behaviour of the South African arms industry in this country and the attacks on Botswana are matters that would benefit from consideration in the House?
Why has the debate on the Scottish rate rebates order been tacked on to the end of a long and busy day next Wednesday? Have the Government a guilty conscience about the missing £20 million—the amount by which the promised £50 million has been reduced since the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister made that promise at the Conservative party conference? Should not the House be accorded a much better time of day in which to consider this major matter of general importance which is of special importance to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I might take the right hon. Gentleman's points in the sequence in which they were presented. I dissociate myself totally from his strictures against my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning an announcement about a change in the immigration rules, but I agree that there is a good case for a debate on this matter. Perhaps we could pursue it through the usual channels.
I shall of course make known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about a statement on teachers' pay. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that at this very moment discussions are taking place, the conclusion of which will probably condition how we should proceed.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a debate on South Africa. Again, I in no sense underwrite the language he used, but it is a valid request which we could consider through the usual channels.
I know that we are in that rather delicate stage of the session when political motives are invested with all kinds of lurid characteristics, but I do not think that there is any reason for taking the motion on the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order at the proposed time on Wednesday evening other than the crowded condition of the order of business which I have announced this week, which is related to what I believe is a universally welcome aspiration—to rise by Friday 26 July.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The Leader of the House will have noted that on the Order Paper there is a number of motions expressing different points of view about the strategic defence initiative, but all of them have in common a request for a debate as soon as possible on the subject. Does he agree that, as the other place has had no fewer than four debates this year on the matter, that every Western European Parliament except ours has had a similar debate and that the Western European Assembly has also had a debate, he should consider providing an early opportunity for a debate when the House reassembles so that we are no longer the only Western European Parliament not to have discussed this important subject?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this subject, but I would point out to him that it was available for discussion during our recent two-day debate on the Defence Estimates. Nevertheless, I shall bear his remarks in mind.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: May I reinforce the plea of the Leader of the Opposition for a clear statement by the Home Secretary on the change in the immigration laws? Because of a reply to a written question the situation is obscure. This matter should not be lost sight of during the normal feverish activities of July.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why, through the usual channels, we are considering providing an opportunity for a debate.

Mr. Fred Silvester: May I remind my right hon. Friend that not only is the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg a matter of hot dispute but that it is to be the subject of another decision in January 1986? May I also remind him that the matter has never been debated or voted upon in this House? Is he able to give an undertaking that the Government will ensure that a debate takes place before a substanive decision is made?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give an undertaking that such a debate will take place in Government time, but I note my hon. Friend's interest in this topic. It is not the first time that he has mentioned it. I very much hope that he will be successful in pursuing the matter.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Because the Nursing Homes and Nursing Agencies (Northern Ireland) Order has not yet been laid and was unheard of until 24 hours ago, does the Leader of the House feel that we can be expected next Friday to debate this order upon which there has been no opportunity whatsoever for consultation?

Mr. Biffen: I am advised that the Nursing Homes and Nursing Agencies (Northern Ireland) Order which was laid today has been made under the urgent procedure, following representations by interested persons in Northern Ireland. Because the order was made under this procedure, no proposal was drafted and circulated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is today writing to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly to explain why the urgent procedure was used. [Interruption.] There is no need for the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) to point as though he were on the other side of the Western oceans. I understand the susceptibilities that have been raised in this House, and I shall discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels.

Sir John Page: As the Water (Fluoridation) Bill has passed through all its stages in another place and will presumably return here fairly soon, will my right hon. Friend ensure that its passage will not be unduly delayed? Whatever may be one's views on this Bill—and I am neutral—it is important to the water industry and a decision should not be unreasonably delayed.

Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's question. His observation is relevant, not least in the context of the time that is still available for debate.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Has the special branch reported to the Prime Minister that in Liverpool, Bootle and elsewhere unemployed people are being recruited to fight as mercenaries in Nicaragua? Has the special branch also reported that those who are recruiting these people were also involved in recruiting mercenaries to fight in Angola? What kind of surveillance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask for a debate on this matter.

Mr. Roberts: I am asking for a debate on it, Mr. Speaker. I should like to be told in a statement next week what surveillance the special branch has kept over those people who are still in this country who were involved in recruiting mercenaries for Angola. This is not a laughing matter. Many of the young unemployed people in my constituency have been approached. If they are on heroin, they are easy prey to this kind of recruitment. A statement is necessary.

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer to my relevant right hon. Friend that request for a statement. As to a debate, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be disposed to take the opportunities offered by the recess Adjournment debate.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As I assume that Her Majesty's Government continue to feel constrained by the wise provisions of the United Nations charter, which prohibit us from looking at the domestic affairs of sovereign states, and as I assume that our interests in countries abroad is mainly confined to the influence of events there on our investment and trading interests, and if, as seems likely, my right hon. Friend concedes a debate on South Africa, may I ask that it include civil order in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole?

Mr. Biffen: I shall take that request into account when any arrangements are concluded for such a debate.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the trenchant all-party criticism by the Public Accounts Committee report published today on the future of the royal dockyards in Rosyth and Devonport and the financial basis of the Government's options, and the Committee's statement about the inadequacy of the information provided to Parliament on those options, will the Leader of the House undertake that the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement to the House setting out the financial thinking before he takes any decision on the matter, certainly before the recess?

Mr. Biffen: All reports from the Public Accounts Committee are subject to a proper and measured response from Government Departments. I am sure that that will be the case in this instance.

Mr. Harry Greenway: If it is possible to have an early statement on the teachers' pay dispute,


may it be broad enough to take account of meetings such as the one that took place in outer London last week? It was addressed by the Labour party's spokesman on education, somebody from the National Union of Teachers, members of Militant Tendency, and sacked miners. It was a small meeting, at which a spokesman said that he was delighted that strikes were taking place at 14 schools in the area, including two special schools. Should not we look hard at the damage that is being done to children's education by the Labour party and such statements?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I understand that he is requesting a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to his observations.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Leader of the House aware that a very important meeting of the Council of steel Ministers in Europe is scheduled for 26 July and that the Government expect to receive the British Steel Corporation's corporate plan at the end of July? Does he agree that it would be most unfortunate if we were to go into the recess with any doubt hanging over the future of Llanwern, Port Talbot and Ravenscraig? Will he make sure that a Minister makes a statement before the House goes into recess guaranteeing the future of those great works?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly represent that point of view to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the west country there is considerable doubt and confusion resulting from the decision of the Select Committee of both Houses on the Okehampton bypass, which continues to frustrate the decision made by the inspector in a full and fair public inquiry? Will he press upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the urgent need to make a statement so that the doubt and confusion are brought to an end immediately?

Mr. Biffen: I happily comply with that request.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In view of the widespread concern that has been expressed about the conduct of Treasury Ministers and civil servants in the Johnson Matthey Bankers collapse, will the Leader of the House guarantee that there will be a debate before we rise for the summer recess?

Mr. Biffen: I am in no position to make such a guarantee in respect of Government time. Other opportunities are available to the hon. Gentleman. Knowing him as I do, I expect him to take advantage of them.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page), and as the Water (Fluoridation) Bill has been extensively debated, in every aspect and at interminable length, may we have an undertaking from my right hon. Friend that when it returns to the House from the other place it will be guillotined, in the interests of the majority?

Mr. Biffen: At this stage all that I can say is that I note with great interest the silent majority now becoming rather more vocal.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Can the Leader of the House rearrange the timetable for next week so that we may have a debate on the Select Committee of Employment report about the National Coal Board's dismissal of employees? This matter is very pressing. At least 80 per cent. of those people sacked by the board are not in the category that the Prime Minister and other Ministers shout about from the Dispatch Box—that they are in a position to be found guilty of violent crimes. Some of them have never been in front of a court. This House ought to debate the report on the dismissals as soon as possible, and certainly before the recess, because the situation has given rise to a lot of hardship and low morale in the coal industry.

Mr. Biffen: I cannot undertake to rearrange next week's business to accommodate a debate upon the Select Committee report. That is not because of any unease about the Committee's report; it is primarily because the programme we have already announced is drawn tightly with a view to the House rising on 26 July. There is simply not room for endless additional debates.

Mr. Roger Sims: Several weeks have elapsed since my right hon. Friend reacted sympathetically to my request for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the plight of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. Will he give the House an opportunity to discuss this matter? May I also draw his attention to the increasing interest in the country about the establishment of family courts? Will he give the House an opportunity to consider that important issue?

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there is no prospect of Government time being made available for those two topics in the near future. As he knows, we will have the recess Adjournment motion and the subsequent Adjournment debates, and those could well give rise to consideration of those topics.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: May I press the Leader of the House further on two aspects of the change in the immigration rules? Does he agree that it is important to have a debate before the House rises for the summer recess? Secondly, could he give an undertaking that such a debate would be separate from the problem of the Tamils on which there is a prayer in the names of my right hon. Friends? It is a totally separate issue.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I hope that I will be able to satisfy him on it.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the wages council regulations which the Government are proposing to repeal contain about the only statutory minimum rights to holidays which exist in our law? Are we to have a debate on those regulations before the House rises, and will we have a debate on the deplorable lack of holiday rights of people in this country?

Mr. Biffen: I regret that there is no prospect of Government time being made available for a debate on those topics.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 791—
[That this House applauds the local councils of Liverpool, Lambeth and Edinburgh, and other local authorities, who are prepared to struggle to defend jobs and services on behalf of ordinary decent people; recognises that Government legislation and policy leaves these local authorities with no alternative but to conduct a campaign to defend working people, existing in hopeless conditions; and, in acknowledging the enormous advances being made in places like Liverpool, in house building and urban renewal, thus creating employment in the public and private sector, calls on the Government to draw back from its attacks on these local authorities.]—
and early-day motion 847—
[That this House condemns the Government's policies towards local authorities, with their centralised controls and financial penalties, and therefore fully supports those councillors like the Labour councillors in the Liverpool City Council who have made a rate, based on the needs of the people of Liverpool, but who, in the process, are forced to make a stand against Government policy; points out clearly that, if the Government's policies were supported in Liverpool, it would mean cuts in local services and create increased unemployment amongst council workers, in an urea which already has extremely high levels of unemployment; and calls on the Government to restore the rate support grant that has been taken away from the Liverpool City Council, to increase the housing investment programme which has been cut, and to urge the district auditor to drop his present action against councillors.]
Motion 791 is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and motion 847 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
In view of speculation in the media that the House may be recalled because of the situation in Liverpool and that emergency legislation has been prepared, will the Leader of the House allow an emergency debate as soon as soon as possible, and will he state whether legislation has been prepared and whether the commissioner is ready to go to Liverpool?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point, but it would not help if I were to speculate on the use of legislation. I fear that there is such a shortage of Government time for debate over the next couple of weeks that, if the topic is to be raised, it will have to be raised by the hon. Member using such opportunities as he possesses.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House try to accommodate a number of the Members who have raised matters of importance so that they may be dealt with before the recess? One fairly easy way out would be to reduce the three months' holiday that Members of Parliament have just been allocated. That is not the most popular suggestion around, but if we were to reduce it we could have a debate on the Tamils, a debate on the National Health Service, a debate on an amnesty of miners who have been sacked, and a day or two-day debate on that squalid business about Johnson Matthey and all the fraudulent activities within it. We could have a right old time, even if we had only another week.

Mr. Biffen: I am slightly concerned at the prospect of a Bolsover benefit week when all these topics would be poured on us, particularly as we now learn that the hon. Gentleman views the three months in prospect as holiday time. There are very few hon. Members who pack up and go on holiday for three months at the end of July. The hon. Gentleman may make an annual pilgrimage to Skegness, but for most of us it is back to our constituencies, and we see very little of the rest of the world.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could some room be found for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on his return from South America? If such a statement were possible, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question of serious over-fishing in the South Atlantic by virtually every country in the world except the British and the Argentines? For example, the Taiwanese, Bulgarians, Koreans and Russians—virtually everybody except ourselves—are running riot in relation to fishing stocks. Will he also react to the statement in the second item of today's BBC news, of which admittedly we do not have the full text, to the effect that predictably and predicted, foreseeably and foreseen, the Argentines have said "No" to the initiative that has been taken in relation to imports in the absence of any discussion on sovereignty?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly refer them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the impropriety, immorality and, indeed, illegality of the prime purpose rule, and in the light of the Prime Minister's unconcerned and superficial response to me on a question to do with this matter the other day, may I back the Leader of the Opposition's insistence that the House have an opportunity to debate this whole matter before we go into the recess?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into that matter.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week so that he can inform the House when he intends to introduce legislation to deprive drug traffickers of their ill-gotten profits?

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the comments of Mr. Robert Caton, the chairman of the Association of Charity Officers, that the Government's new regulations for payments for the elderly and disabled in residential accommodation are leading to a shortfall of £20 a week in rest homes and £70 in nursing homes? Has he also read the comments of Christian Wolmar and Jonathan Foster in The Observer last week that the Prime Minister's recent answer to the Leader of the Opposition showed that she did not fully understand the regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to withdraw these terrible and damaging regulations until Ernst and Whinney, the management consultants, have had an opportunity to look at the levels of payments?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman returns to a subject that on several recent occasions has featured in his requests. I shall of course refer his points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Last week the right hon. Gentleman intimated that before the House rises for the summer recess there would be a debate on the position of Tamil asylum seekers and refugees as well as the visa restrictions. As far as I understand, he has failed to give a categorical assurance of a debate on the immigration rules announced in yesterday's statement by the Home Secretary. Will he now give a categorical assurance that before the House rises there will be a debate which will include the question of the Tamil asylum seekers, the unprecedented visa restrictions on anyone wishing to leave Sri Lanka and the implementation of yesterday's announcement by the Home Secretary in relation to a European Court decision?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a repeat of what he said last week. I can best help him by referring to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft).

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why should the Leader of the house suggest that the debate on Johnson Matthey take place in Opposition time when the Government are £200 million on risk? Surely the debate should take place in Government time. Is it not fair to say that over the past three months the Government have deliberately set out to engineer a failure to debate this matter because they have so much to hide?

Mr. Biffen: I find the innuendo not appropriate to these exchanges. I think that Hansard will reveal that I said that there would be no opportunity for debate in Government time until the end of July.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that information has come to me that an action of interdict is to be commenced in the Court of Session in Edinburth tomorrow against the sale of the trustee savings bank? In the circumstances, what plan has he for the debate he has announced for Monday evening?

Mr. Biffen: I received a letter to that effect just before I came into the Chamber. I will look at the matter as a matter of urgency and get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman.

ESTIMATES DAY

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Estimates 1985–86

Department of the Environment

Class VII, Vote 1

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £1,151,288,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services.— [Sir George Young.]

Mr. Speaker: I understand it will be convenient for the House to discuss also the following Estimates: class VII, vote 2, class VIII, vote 2; class VIII, vote 3; class VIII, vote 5; class XIV, vote 1

Sir Hugh Rossi: Last year and again this year the Select Committee on the Environment has produced two reports, one commenting on the main Estimates of the Department of the Environment and the other on the main Estimates of the Property Services Agency. I wish to draw the attention of the House to those reports, published on 22 May, which are noted on today's Order Paper. In preparing them the Committee has scrutinised closely the whole range of Estimates concerned and taken evidence from officials. The work is laborious but necessary and we have been charged to do it by the House because of the way in which, in the past, vast amounts of public money have been voted annually without debate.
The results of our scrutiny may not attract widespread public interest and are the reverse of sensational. Nevertheless, they are of value in Parliament's work of scrutiny of expenditure by the Executive.
I shall start with the Department of the Environment. We looked first at some matters on which we commented in our two reports of last year. The Government have not yet remedied the situation that dog licences cost substantially more to issue than the revenue that they raise. The net cost is still in the order of £3·4 million a year. There has been a consultation paper following our last year's report but no action has so far been taken. We consider that the House should not be asked to vote further Supply for this wasteful purpose next year, although we are giving the Government a little more time this year and do not seek a reduction of the vote. The Government must make up their mind to abolish the licence or to introduce a new cost-effective system for the care and control of dogs along the lines of the working party paper produced in 1976.
The Committee returned again to our criticism that some expenditure is being incurred on a regular basis by the Department under the sole authority of the Appropriation Acts. This situation has not been remedied. For example, £850,000 is being paid to various international bodies without any specific statutory authority, and this seems to be a common practice in most


Departments. The Committee regards this as unsatisfactory, and if corrective action is not taken before next year's Estimates the House should consider very seriously whether or not it is prepared to vote money in this way.
Last year we also drew attention to the considerable over-claiming of housing subsidy by local authorities. We are pleased to learn that the Department has made changes in this sector which should have the effect of reducing over-claiming of the kind of levels unavoidable in any system of paying in advance. We feel that to abate claims where audited returns are not submitted in a reasonable time is a correct way forward.
We were not happy as a Committee about the state of housing maintenance. It seems certain that there is a very large backlog both in the private and in the public sectors. The level of local authority expenditure in improvement grants is falling. It is true that the Government have issued a consultative paper upon which comments were due last Tuesday, but the time has been further extended. It is not clear what the position is in the public sector from any of the evidence we have been able to adduce. In fact, there is a lack of information about the precise dimensions of the whole problem.
It is true that there is to be a house condition survey in 1986. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the information collected will be in a form that can be compared with the results of the last survey. If we have to accept that resources available for renovation are limited, it is all the more important to have a clear picture of the problem and to deploy the resources available to the best possible advantage.
We commented in our report upon the provision of sites for gipsy caravans. Such sites are provided for 65 per cent. of caravans, so there is a substantial shortage. Most of us are familiar with the kind of problems that this gives rise to. We also felt concerned that some local authorities were using the grant, which has a heavy Exchequer reimbursement element in it, not for true travellers but as a cheap means of rehousing families who would otherwise have to come off their general housing waiting list. I hope that the Minister will look into this much neglected area of his Department's activities.
Also of importance is the inadequate provision made by the Department and local authorities for those who are prepared to move their homes in search of work. At present local authorities make available only 1 per cent. of their new lettings for people coming into their areas from other parts of the country. That does not encourage mobility of labour. We have therefore made a modest proposal that the figure should be raised to 2 per cent. I realise the difficulties for local authorities in giving increased priority to one group as against another in allocating their housing resources, but 1 per cent. is a very pathetic figure at a time of high unemployment. Perhaps the Government could provide some financial inducement to authorities which are prepared to do more and penalise those which are not.
We have some comments to make upon the development corporations in Liverpool and London. In Liverpool, no evaluation seems to have been made of the imaginative experiments of the Liverpool international garden festival, and this should have been done. We need to know whether money spent in this way is the best way to help to regenerate areas of urban blight.
In London, we were disturbed by the evidence that the administrative costs of the London Docklands development corporation appear to be 20 per cent. of its total costs, while the comparable figure for the Merseyside development corporation was only 8 per cent. There may be good reasons for this disparity, and if so they should be spelt out. We hope that the Minister will be able to give us further enlightenment or promises to carry out an investigation into this discrepancy.
I shall now deal with the Property Services Agency. There is another backlog of maintenance in the public estates administered by the PSA, and that is expected to grow in the coming year. The danger is that neglected work will give rise to greater expenditure in the future than if it were tackled immediately. No doubt the Minister will plead a lack of resources, but in that case it is necessary to ensure that the available money is being spent in the most effective way.
In accordance with the current practice in the Civil Service of giving local managers more responsibility for expenditure on the resources that they are using, the PSA has been delegating maintenance work to individual Departments. At present, Departments can spend up to £1,000 on a job without reference to the PSA. This figure is too small, and it is indicative, we felt on hearing the evidence, of the reluctance on the part of the PSA to relax its monopoly on the facile excuse that Government Departments are incapable of supervising contract work in excess of the derisory figure of £1,000 a job. We are convinced that much more value for money is to be obtained by increasing local managers' responsibility in the various Government Departments.
The main observations in our report are concerned with the relationships between the PSA and the Departments. Under the two-year-old property repayment services system, Departments are now charged a rental by the PSA for the accommodation they occupy, whether the property is in the Government's direct ownership or belongs to a private landlord to whom the PSA pays rent. An oddity is that the rentals collected by the PSA are paid straight into the Consolidated Fund and are not credited to the agency in the Estimates. If they were, a more realistic profit and loss account would be produced and surplus rents could be put into reserve to finance further acquisitions when appropriate.
I appreciate that the purpose of the property repayment service system is essentially to encourage Departments to appreciate the value of the accommodation that they happen to occupy and therefore make any appropriate economies which that knowledge can bring about. However, there are shortcomings in the way that the system operates in practice, if only in the great amount of paperwork that it seems to generate. The Committee came to the conclusion that it would like to see a civil accommodation account for the PSA, set out on commercial lines with past capital expenditure, current expenditure and revenue all taken properly into account. This would enable a far more accurate assessment of the Government's property portfolio.
The Government have continued their policy of transferring design work from the PSA to outside consultants. As far as the Committee could tell, the change is resulting in increased costs. We are told that this is a short-term phenomenon and that the introduction of fee competition between consultants that took place in 1984 will reduce the costs entirely. Clearly, this part of


expenditure calls for continuing close scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he is not allowing consultancy firms to take him for a ride.

Mr. Richard Alexander: My hon. Friend has given us an excellent resumé of the Committee's views and I do not wish to add much. However, does he agree that too narrow a range of consultants is being asked to make tenders, and that only large organisations are being asked? Are there not many people operating on a much smaller base who could do the work just as well, and probably a great deal more cheaply than the big boys are doing it at the moment?

Sir Hugh Rossi: My hon. Friend is a member of the Committee and has taken a close interest in this aspect. There is a great deal of merit in his proposition. I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Minister may take the view that it is necessary to maintain the balance between firms of proven worth and whose which are unknown but nevertheless may offer services at a reduced fee. The Department could well examine that more carefully with a view to widening the range of people with whom the PSA is prepared to do business.
The Committee had several comments about our examination of the PSA's expenditure on major new works. I am glad that, despite the criticisms that we have made in other parts, we were able to congratulate the agency on the much better presentation of this year's material than last year's. However, we still have reservations as to the way in which the Treasury makes money available for purchasing properties when they come onto the market on advantageous terms.
From the evidence that we received from officials, it seems that, practically, this can be done in current circumstances only if the PSA has an unexpected shortfall on expenditure on other works. This is a hit and miss way to buy property that comes on the market on good terms, and not an intelligent way to operate a property portfolio. To this extent, my previous remarks about a civil accommodation account on a proper commercial basis, giving credit for all rents payable by Departments, would be a way in which a fund could be built up, as happens in the private sector, in order to buy a property at the right time.
We feel that Departments should be strongly discouraged, when giving new contracts, from altering their specification for new projects after the time when financial provision for them has been made in the Estimates. Failure to discourage them makes the original Estimates presented to the House meaningless, and that is one of the criticisms that the Committee had to make strongly.

Mr. David Alton: The hon. Gentleman is advancing his case eloquently. I underline what he just said by reiterating our experience when we debated the Estimates last year. We were much concerned about possible corruption in the PSA, but are now concerned with incompetence. If accounts are badly presented and if people have written into those accounts estimates that fall well short of the final figure, is it any wonder that people misrepresent that as corruption?

Sir Hugh Rossi: The PSA itself talked about corruption, which caused it concern and which was the

subject of investigation by another Committee of the House. Steps are being taken to deal with any corruption, but much still remains to be done about the presentation of the Estimates. Perhaps the PSA is a prisoner of Treasury conventions, some of which we criticise in our report.
The Select Committee is glad to have had the opportunity of examining the Estimates. It has been of value to us to range across all the Department's activities. We hope that the results of our work will also be of some value to the House and, of course, to the Department.

Mr. David Alton: I am pleased to follow the excellent presentation by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee. All members of the Select Committee, from whichever party, would commend to the House his diligence in chairing the Select Committee and his taskmaster approach.
I shall deal with four matters, starting with the Property Services Agency. There is undoubtedly a need for continuing close scrutiny of the PSA. I trust that the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that he was unable to give last year—that the many shortcomings in the PSA have been put right.
PSA officials appeared before the Select Committee and it was clear to all of us that its accounting methods were unsatisfactory. We discovered many examples, if not of bad housekeeping, of bad presentation. That is why the memory of Sir Geoffrey Wardale's report, which dealt with corruption in the PSA, still hangs over that organisation. He concluded that the organisation of the PSA had not been put right and that many defects and examples of inefficiency and incompetence still existed. He also said that he could not be sure that corruption had been ended. That is clearly a matter for the Department of the Environment.
The contrast between the retaliatory measures which the Government take against local authorities and against the PSA is considerable. Within their own house, the Government are often not as scrupulous about obtaining value for money and dealing with inefficiency and incompetence as they are when challenging local authorities, which, on the whole, have given far better value for money than the PSA.
I commend to the House the recommendation on the civil accommodation account. This method of presenting accounts would ensure that some of the criticisms of the PSA that we have made over the past two years would not need to be made again.
The Chairman of the Select Committee talked about gipsy sites. Many local authorities have failed to implement the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The reason for that is that the legislation is not mandatory, and many local authorities do not implement it. Those local authorities which have chosen to implement it have attracted travellers and gipsies to their areas. This allows other local authorities to pretend that they have no problem and that there is no need for them to make provision.
Many authorities which have provided sites also have many other pressing social issues to deal with. On Merseyside, the Liverpool city council with all-party agreement, provided a site at considerable public expense, while other adjacent authorities, such as the Wirral and Sefton, made no such provision. Liverpool's problems in connection with travelling people have increased as a


result of its attempts to tackle the problem, whereas other authorities which have done nothing do not attract the problems.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The experience on Merseyside appears to be different from that in my area. Those authorities which have achieved designation are able to control the problem, but those which have not yet provided sites end up with a flood of gipsies who have been moved on from designated areas. Perhaps the situation is different in different parts of the country.

Mr. Alton: I was about to make that point. No clear lines can be drawn and the problem does vary in different parts of the country. Merseyside and other areas with ports of entry, especially from the Republic of Ireland, have particular problems.
It is clear that the legislation is not being uniformly implemented throughout the country and that some local authorities are getting away with making no provision, while others have to bear the brunt. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
I agree that more needs to be done to evaluate the work of development corporations. I admit that I was sceptical about establishing development corporations. I was nervous that the Merseyside development corporation would simply try to take the place of the local authority and that it would lead to the further erosion of local democracy. I am glad to be able to say that the work done by the development corporation on Merseyside, especially in connection with the international garden festival, has been spectacularly successful. I pay special tribute to all those involved, including Basil Bean, the chief executive of the development corporation, who is soon to move to another post. He has been a driving force, like Sir Leslie Young, who, as chairman, was the corporation's local anchor. He understood local commerce and problems and tried to take into account local political sensitivities.
If the development corporation is to continue to be successful, we must broaden the board to ensure that all local political opinion is taken into account. I am pleased that Mr. John Smith has accepted the deputy chairmanship of the corporation, but I emphasise that some people on Merseyside are worried because the political weight of the corporation does not take into account the views of people outside the Conservative party. That could bring discredit upon the corporation.
Apart from improving democratic accountability and ensuring that political opinions are properly represented, I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green about the need to evaluate the work of the development corporations. I should like to know how many jobs have been created on Merseyside as a result of the garden festival. Much was said in advance about it providing a stimulus to employment. In that sense, the garden festival has not been as successful as it was in terms of being a major land reclamation project. About £30 million of public money has been spent. We should be given some idea of the cost effectiveness of such projects and of how useful they are in stimulating local commercial recovery.
I hope that the development corporation will be encouraged to continue its work in redeveloping the south dock area of Liverpool and to establish the northern Tate

gallery at Albert dock. I hope that adequate funds will be made available to enable the corporation to complete some of its imaginative projects.
Dealing finally with direct labour organisations, many do not provide value for money. That was made clear to us by witnesses from the Department, the PSA and local government. In the two years that I have served on the Select Committee, I have become ever more convinced —even more than when I served as chairman of the housing committee in Liverpool — that we must find other ways of managing large areas of municipal housing.
I was brought up in a flat on a council estate and I am well aware of the way in which council property can meet the needs of those who come from the poorest backgrounds and cannot afford to buy their own homes. There will always be a role for public sector housing, but the way in which that housing is managed and maintained should be further considered by Parliament and by the Select Committee of which I have the privilege to be a member.

Mr. Chris Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect carefully on what he just said. He implied that council housing was appropriate only for the poorest section of the community who cannot afford to buy their own homes. Surely a major principle of council housing is that it is based on need and not on income. Rather than going for the ghettoisation effect of public housing as in the United States, which the hon. Gentleman implies, we should be going for a broader spread of social background for council housing.

Mr. Alton: I was implying that there should be as much diversity in housing as we can achieve. If people do not have a need, I would prefer that they were not reliant on public sector housing. I want to see the dismantling of municipal empires, with control being handed over to tenants living on estates, particularly through housing cooperatives. I want to see more opportunity for self-build and for low-cost homes for sale. As many people as possible should be able to enjoy the comfort of decent housing.
Some of the worst housing conditions in my city are, I am afraid to say, in municipal housing, and that situation has pertained under all administrations. That has happened because those who live in that housing often do not feel that they have a stake in the community. In other words, they do not feel that their homes belong to them.
That is why we must hand over as much property as possible, to the tenants on council estates through a radical system of decentralisation, especially supporting housing co-operatives. Indeed, the best clerks of works, as it were, who are able to get value for money, are the people who live on those council estates.
The Government's present policy of simply selling off council houses is not the answer. Equally, the action of Labour authorities in cities such as mine in preventing people from forming housing co-operatives is diametrically opposed to the best interests of the people. I want diversity, coupled with value for money. That is why I say that the best clerks of works are those who live on council estates. If they are given control of their homes, they will get value for money when they hire labour for maintenance purposes.
I am depressed by the present state of much council accommodation, not only in my city, but throughout the country. People are often obliged to live in damp, squalid


conditions, and that can have an enormous effect on family life. People can be driven to the depths of despair because of the conditions in which they are forced to live. The Government should provide more resources to tackle these problems. They should also encourage the establishment of housing co-operatives and the dismantling of large corporations.
It is clear that, in this sphere, bigger is not better. Of the 70,000 council properties in my city, 6,000 are currently lying empty. I have in the past highlighted examples of houses — fortunately they have now been demolished—which had stood empty for 23 years. I believe that the local authority had even forgotten that it actually owned those properties. That is what can happen when council ownership grows like Topsy and direct labour organisations and municipalities decide what is best for the people living in their houses. We need a more radical approach.
Too much emphasis has been laid in the past simply on the problems of the public sector, as the Select Committee points out. In many parts of inner cities the challenge will come in housing action and general improvement areas, where progress has come largely as the result of progressive legislation enacted by the last Labour Government and as the result of grants provided by the present Government.
The Minister frequently tells us about the amount of money that has been made available for improvement grants, but because of the reduction now being made in improvement grants, the work done in the 1970s and early 1980s is being put at risk in housing action areas. We shall end up with a patchwork quilt of housing renovation and decay. In other words, by being pennywise and poundfoolish we are wasting a great deal of public money that has already been invested in those areas.
About 400,000 building workers are today languishing on the dole. Public money is being paid to them to remain idle. The cost of leaving people unemployed, of paying benefit and of lost income tax which they would otherwise be paying, coupled with the cost of private and public sector housing, is enormous. I cannot understand the logic of such economics and I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach both to public and private sector housing. They must stop using housing as an economic barometer for their monetary idealogies.
I again pay tribute to the Chairman of, and my colleagues on, the Select Committee. It is vital work to examine public accounts. It is important for Select Committees to act as the watchdogs and guardians of the public purse. We have discharged that responsibility in the way that the House would expect.
Hon. Members must one day give serious consideration to improving the powers of Select Committees so that they can do more, perhaps by way of directly stimulating change and initiating legislation. I hope that at some future time it will not simply be a question of the Chairman of our Select Committee putting points to the Minister, but that he will have a chance to initiate the changes which both he and we know are necessary.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: The point that I wish to make, while specific, might be felt to be narrow. However, for those who are affected, it is a point of great importance.
We referred last year to the cost of dog licences, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) commented on the subject in his remarks today. I congratulate him on the quality of his speech. He said that nothing had been done about the matter, and it is true that, while we have had a consultation paper, nothing appears to be happening in relation to dog licences.
Nor is it simply a question of revenue, although it seems ludicrous to raise only a fraction of the cost of providing the licences. However, I should have thought that, if for no other purpose than that of revenue, the course that I shall urge would commend itself to the Government.
There is more to it than finance. In recent weeks in Blackpool there have been two cases of toxocariasis, a disease which causes blindness. It arises through dog dirt. Almost inevitably, and tragically, children come in contact with it in the parks and elsewhere, although it can affect anybody. Of the two cases in Blackpool, one resulted in total blindness, and in the other a child lost an eye. When a parent sends his or her children to play in the park and finds that that is the result of what is considered to be an innocent occupation, the trauma is difficult to overestimate.
It is essential that a proper licence fee is charged that induces some responsibility. That would help in large measure. Secondly, the Government should bear in mind that the burden of policing parks rests firmly upon the shoulders of local authorities. A substantial proportion of the new sum that is raised should be given specifically to the authorities which have the responsibility, the difficulty and the expense. The sum should be additional to any other moneys that they receive. It should be given to them specifically to assist them to meet their difficulties. That will help them properly to police and control the parks.
When a licence is granted, we cannot say to the dog owner, "You must produce a veterinary certificate which states that your dog has been wormed." Perhaps that would be too expensive a requirement to put upon dog owners, although it might be a sensible course to take. I have a dog, and I would be only too pleased to give such an undertaking. However, when a licence is issued there should be a requirement that the owner produces a receipt to show that he has bought the appropriate powders. If he has bought them, it is almost inevitable that they will have been used. That requirement would not impose an onerous obligation.
First, we should introduce a licence fee that will make people responsible for their dogs. It is often the dog that is straying that causes trouble. Secondly, a proportion of the revenue so raised should be given to local authorities to assist them to control their parks. Thirdly, there should be some proof that a dog has been properly wormed. If these steps are taken, the tragedies that we have experienced in Blackpool will not recur.

Mr. Chris Smith: I agree with much that the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) has said, but I shall


not take up his remarks because I wish to refer to two other matters and I do not want to waste too much of the time of the House.
The Select Committee questioned officials of the Department of the Environment about the right-to-buy scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations. The scheme was introduced under the terms of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984. It involves tenants of charitable housing associations who are not able to purchase the accommodation in which they currently reside being able to purchase accommodation on the private market with a grant from the housing association which is equivalent to the discount which they would have received if they had been council tenants or the tenants of a non-charitable housing association exercising their right to buy their present dwelling.
I asked the officials to tell me how much money was laid aside in the Estimates for the cost of the grants and where the money was to come from. The response from the officials was unsatisfactory. I have it in print in front of me. It reads:
The cost of the discounts under this scheme is met by Exchequer grant in the form of a housing association grant paid to the housing association through which the tenant arranges his purchase. Provision for it forms a small part, not specifically identified, of the overall provision for housing association grant in subhead El of class VII, 1.
That means that the provision of money for grants to tenants of charitable housing associations exercising their rights under the scheme comes directly from the pool of money that is available to housing associations for the development of new and improved property to rent. In other words, the amount of money is crucial. We are told that the cost of the grants is only a small part of the overall provision, and it appears that no specific estimate is made of the cost of the scheme. This is a crucial issue, because the cost of the scheme will be deducted from the overall sum that is made available for association grant purposes by the associations for the development of new and improved property.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some rather more satisfactory answers than those which were given by his officials. I invite him to tell us how much money is expected to be paid under housing association grants to tenants of housing associations who are not able to purchase the accommodation in which they are living and who purchase on the private market. I hope that he will give us the total for this year and the sum that is expected to be paid next year. The issue is crucial for the purpose of housing association development this year and next.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that everyone who moves out of a charitable housing association flat or house creates a vacancy by taking advantage of the scheme? Each vacancy is created at much less cost to the Exchequer than the building of a new flat or house. In creating lettings for the associations, the scheme provides a cheap alternative that offers value for money.

Mr. Smith: I accept some of the premises in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, although he leaves out of account the calculation of mortgage tax relief, for example, which will become available to the person or family who move into the private sector. The person who moves out will obtain a mortgage and will be entitled to the relief which he is not receiving currently. The equation

is rather more complicated than the simple formulation which the hon. Gentleman presented, but his basic proposition is correct.
If a family, an individual or a group of people move out of a unit of accommodation and that unit becomes available for letting by the charitable housing association, a vacancy will be created at less cost to the Exchequer than the building of a new flat or house. However, money will have been taken out of the overall pool that is available for the development of new accommodation and new schemes. That worries many housing associations and those who are waiting for association accommodation. I hope that we shall have some serious and sensible answers in response to this small but important issue.
The Government have riot been spending very much money on housing over the past few years. I tabled a parliamentary question about a year and a half ago seeking comparative figures. My question asked the Government to use a base date of 1977. I accept that the trend has been similar under Governments of both political persuasions, as I am sure the Minister will hasten to remind us. Nevertheless, the graph has steepened under the present Government. I asked the Government to start with a base date of 1976–77 and to state, against a figure of 100, what had happened to elements of Government expenditure from that base date. The answer revealed that under almost all headings public expenditure was within the 90 to 110 level. Some items of expenditure had decreased slightly and some had increased slightly.
There has been a dramatic increase in public expenditure on defence and social security. The social security increases are a direct result of the amount of unemployment benefit that is paid out. In one respect alone there has been a dramatic fall from 100 to 30—a cut to less than a third. That was housing.
The record of the past 10 years is not a proud one. We can see the results throughout Britain. Houses and fiats are in an appalling condition, with people having to live in damp, mouldy, difficult, overcrowded accommodation without any hope of being able to move out into something better for themselves and their children. Many people throughout Britain, including my constituency, are having to endure those difficulties.
About a month ago the Minister for Housing and Construction went to Islington to see some of the housing conditions for himself. He saw what the local authority, against all the odds—in the face of continuing cuts in the housing investment programme and constraints on capital expenditure—has assiduously been trying to do. In many cases it has been producing good accommodation, but it is able to do far too little in the face of the enormous problems of those who need accommodation.
Even if the Under-Secretary of State and his civil servants are not prepared to admit that the overall levels of HIP allocations are too low—they have consistently not been prepared to accept this—and to admit that the constraints on the spending of capital receipts are an economic absurdity and a cruel deceit for the people living in inadequate and insubstantial accommodation, perhaps they will accept that some specific problem areas need a specific allocation of funds.

Mr. Tony Banks: I note what my hon. Friend is saying about housing stock in his borough of Islington. His borough has partnership status and is the seventh most deprived local authority area in


England, whereas my borough of Newham is the second most deprived area and has neither partnership nor programme status. Is that fair?

Mr. Smith: I would certainly not advocate swapping Islington's partnership status for Newham's position. I know Newham well—of course, not as well as I know Islington—and am well aware of the urban dereliction there, the difficulties that face the people and the need for special Government attention and assistance. I look forward to the day when we have a Government who are more clear-sighted and humane than the present Government and who will not only pay attention to those problems in Newham, but will pay more assiduous attention to the problems in Islington, despite its partnership status.
I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to five specific problem areas where housing subsidy is inadequate and where the Government could undertake to give special assistance without necessarily breaching their overall approach to the HIP allocation system. I have tried so often in the past to convince the Government that this is a good cause, and failed, that I am rapidly giving up any hope that the Government will bend on this matter.
First, the Government have been happy to rush legislation through the House to deal with housing defects in non-traditional blocks which have been badly, inadequately and dangerously built, to protect the interests of those tenants who have availed themselves of the right to buy and bought flats in such blocks, but they have not been prepared to recognise the difficulties and needs of the tenants in such blocks. Perhaps the Government are now giving some consideration to their needs and wishes.
Secondly, the Government have consistently refused to acknowledge that asbestos in large quantities in large blocks, many of which were built during the 1950s and 1960s, is dangerous and should be removed, in the interests of the safety and health of the residents. They have refused to acknowledge that local authorities face a special difficulty in ensuring that the asbestos is removed properly and quickly. The Government have not been prepared to consider an ad hoc system of special grants for the removal of asbestos where it is found by the local authority. I am sure that local authorities would be prepared to have a system of Department of the Environment approval when the Department deems that to be necessary. Surely it would be more sensible to do that rather than leave local authorities with the job of having to meet the removal costs from their overall existing housing programmes. A special system should be implemented as quickly as possible to remove asbestos where it is dangerous.
The third problem area is the inter-war estates. During his visit to Islington the Minister for Housing and Construction visited some of the inter-war estate blocks which have been renovated and transformed under the council's imaginative programme. I think that he was impressed. In assessing the housing needs of a particular area, the Government should recognise the considerable cost incurred by local authorities in transforming old blocks into better accommodation.
Fourthly, the Government should consider the number of homeless people who apply every year to the local authorities for housing. The Government will say that this

is taken account of in the general needs index. The pressure on many inner city boroughs to provide housing is becoming so acute, especially in those boroughs which have resorted to using sordid and inadequate bed-and-breakfast accommodation, that they are often able to deal with only the problem of the homeless and not the needs of the other people in their areas who need better housing conditions. I hope that the Government will pay attention to that problem, which affects some parts of Britain more dramatically than others.
Fifthly, I hope that the Government will give some recognition, not just to the non-traditional blocks but to the blocks that were constructed in concrete in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, where people are living in damp conditions and condensation is running down the walls. As any hon. Member who represents an inner city area will know, people are living in inadequate, poorly heated and poorly insulated accommodation which needs major renovation work if it is to be made a decent place in which to live.
The Government are taking no account of those problems in the housing investment programme allocations, in their capital restraints or in any of their housing policies. Even if they want to keep the lid on public expenditure, they must realise that there are specific problems and that people are suffering tragically and need the concern, care and attention not just of their local authority, but of the Government, who control the nation's purse strings. I hope that the Government will give us some mileage today to show that, for once, they are awake to the fact that hundreds of thousands of families with children are living in appalling, substandard, inadequate and degrading accommodation. These people need something better and they are waiting for the Government to take action.

5 pm

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who always makes challenging speeches with great authority. I also join in congratulating the Chairman of the Environment Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), whose diligence is exceeded only by his qualities of chairmanship in the scrutiny of these Estimates, which are a less glamorous but vitally necessary part of the work of the Committee.
I should like first to deal with that part of class VIII vote 3 which relates to urban development corporations and specifically to refer to the London Docklands development corporation. Under class VIII vote 3 there is an allocation of approximately £50·7 million for the corporation. That is one of the best possible investments of public money. It is marvellous to behold the regeneration taking place in this eight square miles of our capital city. It is not simply a matter of redeveloping land or converting warehouses or building new homes. The corporation is making superb environmental use of the greatest natural asset of the area —the Thames and its docklands.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Chapman: I shall give way shortly. I will continue with what I hope is not a peroration but a few facts. I will then give way to the hon. Gentleman as he is


the leader of our county council. The LDDC development must be seen in the context of the great public service infrastructure. The docklands light railway is a most interesting enterprise and £15 million is to be provided for that from the Estimates, towards a total cost of about £70 million. I am pleased that rapid progress is being made on that enterprise and I acknowledge the Government's commitment in giving the go-ahead for the STOLport.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has touched on a subject that is very close to my heart and close to the interests of the residents of Newham. He mentioned that the LDDC was building houses. He must be aware that the majority of people living in Newham cannot afford to buy houses in the LDDC area. The Government have used the resources invested in the LDDC area as a reason for not allowing the borough of Newham partnership status. The 6 per cent. of Newham residents who live in the docklands area reap no benefit from the LDDC's activities.

Mr. Chapman: I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is being slightly shortsighted. I bow to the hon. Gentleman's authority and knowledge of the area, but in my view the whole thrust of the provision of housing in the docklands is to cater for all income groups as far as is practicably possible. Various docklands trust schemes have been set up, as well as the more conventional and recently introduced concept of equity sharing, and these provide opportunities for people to start the process of home ownership on quite modest means in that part of our capital city.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives me the opportunity to stress that what is taking place in the LDDC area is a classic example of what should happen in redevelopment—a marriage between private enterprise and public authorities. I am sure that co-operation is also happening in the Merseyside development corporation. Both private enterprise and public authorities bring their own special skills to the benefit of one another and to the satisfaction of the community.
Although the estimate for the next year's public expenditure programme for the LDDC area is £50·7 millions, there is little doubt that previous expenditure, with this expenditure and future expenditure, is primarily responsible for bringing in private development. Private companies have already committed themselves to commercial and industrial development to the value of £140 million in the LDDC area. Four thousand homes have been started or completed and 180 new firms have come into the area since 1981, creating 4,000 new jobs.
I have one query — not a criticism — about the relatively high level of expenditure allocated to administration and salaries for administration staff—20 per cent. of the £50·7 million total. I am told that those figures may not be correct. If they are not, someone must be held to account for providing misleading figures. Administration costs will necessarily be high because of the area in which the development is taking place. That £10 million of public money for administration should be seen in the context of private investment as well as public commitment.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has highlighted the argument by the Chairman of the Select Committee about the need to monitor and evaluate the success of the LDDC and the

Merseyside development corporation. An important difference between the two development corporations is that private enterprise has been successful in building homes in the LDDC area whereas no home provision has been made in the MDC area. Would it not be practical for the MDC to follow in the footsteps of the LDDC and to build houses?

Mr. Chapman: I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has greater experience of the MDC. I can speak with more authority about the LDDC than about the MDC. Home provision has proved to be a staggering success and that concept should be extended to other conurbations. I once wrote a very modest paper—so modest that it received little attention —pointing out that 15 years ago there was a case for earmarking certain areas of, for example, London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, to create special priority areas and so concentrate resources to redevelop and renovate and show what can be done.
My second point relates to the housing subsidies mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Class VII vote 1 relates to housing improvement grants. It is not all gloom and doom in this sector of housing subsidies. I took the precaution of checking the figures. In 1978–79—I do not know why I chose that year—£90 million was spent on housing improvements grants. By 1983–84 the total outturn was £933 million. Last year it had gone down to £778 million. Nevertheless, these figures show that there has been a massive increase in resources devoted to one type of housing subsidy. Improvement grants are, by any criterion, a most cost-effective way to renovate, refurbish and rehabilitate our housing stock—and they provide jobs.
I welcome the publication of the Green Paper, not because I think it has the complete answer or is an end in itself, but because it will create a framework for a better system for the most effective use of the significant resources devoted to this part of housing subsidy. There is a great case for ensuring, far more effectively than we have hitherto, that those resources go to the households that need them, rather than right across the board, irrespective of need.
I turn finally to the whole question of capital expenditure, which covers all the classes and votes which are the subject of the various motions. According to what I was told recently, under the present Government, whereas current expenditure has increased in real terms by 8 per cent., capital expenditure has decreased by 4 per cent. in real terms. I know that capital expenditure decreased even more dramatically in the previous period, but that shows that the Government were starting from a low base.
We must have a much more intelligently planned rolling expansion programme for our capital investment. We have managed to do it in defence and in the Health Service, so I cannot see why it should be beyond the wit of Government to try to isolate capital expenditure programmes from the general thrust of demand-led current expenditure in particular.
The capital investment in the nation's infrastructure is cost effective, and I do not see why the Government cannot announce that next year there will be an increase of X per cent. in real terms and the following year a further increase of, say 1 per cent. beyond that, and stick rigorously to it.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I wonder whether my hon. Friend, in his well-intentioned enthusiasm, is losing sight of one point. The capital expenditure programmes to which he is referring are often assumed to be labour-intensive and therefore helpful in regard to unemployment. Will my hon. Friend accept that most of the capital expenditure programmes in construction and environment are anything but labour-intensive? Will he concede that point?

Mr. Chapman: I concede it partly, in the sense that I withdraw the remark if I made it, but I do not think I said that I was advocating an expansion of capital investment programmes in the construction industry in particular because it was the most cost-effective way of providing employment. I am sorry if my hon. Friend thought I said that; I do not think that I did. What I said earlier was that increasing housing improvement grants is one of the most effective ways of providing employment in the construction industry.
But I go further and suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and, respectfully, to the House that what is important is not only the level of investment in the infrastructure programme of the construction industry but that the construction industry should know what it is so that it can plan ahead to try to achieve it.
The House will know of my particular interest in construction and in the environment. I hope that the Government will find a more intelligent way of dealing with the programme for the construction industry, which is still our greatest industry, whether measured in terms of output or manpower.

Mr. Kevin Barron: It is not often that I am able to say that I agree with part—if not all—of a speech by a Conservative Member, but I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) in regard to housing improvement grants and their consequential effect on employment locally. I am pleased that it is not only Opposition Members who are calling the Minister's attention to that matter. Great difficulties are being encountered in the attempts to improve housing in my constituency and in the area of the Rotherham metropolitan borough, and at the same time there is tremendous pressure on the housing investment programme.
I wish to refer to two matters in the Estimates, one of which relates to housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the way in which the Housing Defects Bill was rushed through the House last year. I should like to draw attention to the plight of people living in defective houses. They have seen the Government introducing legislation to deal with the problem which has arisen when people have bought a pig in a poke, but the Government have done nothing to give local authorities the ability to repair such houses, if indeed they are repairable.
Hundreds of people in my constituency have bought housing direct from the Rotherham metropolitan borough council or from other public bodies in my constituency, such as the National Coal Board. They are still waiting for the Minister to introduce a proper reinstatement programme for Reema and Tarran houses, or alternatively to give money to my local authority for the repurchase of those houses if they cannot be reinstated.
The local authority is incurring expense in finding out exactly the plight of people and whether they would like to have their houses repurchased. I have in my hand six A4 size pages which were sent out in desperation by Rotherham metropolitan borough council, in May of this year, to tell the people who bought houses which are designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984 that at present very little can be done for them, apart from asking them to write to the council describing their circumstances, so that the council can decide whether such cases can be deemed to be emergencies and bought back.
When the Act was passed, Rotherham council was told that there would be money available, although the assurance was not very specific. The Government's role in making money available for housing in Rotherham in the past five years has been a diminishing one. This year, the council has been able to build only 60 bungalows. That is in an area with a population of over 250,000. In the late 1970s, Rotherham was in the proud position that within a fortnight people could move into new homes if they were unable to buy on the private market. Since public authorities started to sell houses, the vast majority of people in my area have been unable to buy them.
Not only has the council had to reduce its house building programme, but under the housing investment programme it cannot repair council house stock that needs repair. In addition, the council has not been given any money for the repurchase or reinstatement of houses designated under the Act.
I understand that in May of this year the local authorities submitted information on what they deemed would be the cost of implementing the Housing Defects Act. I urge the Minister to tell the House whether any decision has been taken in relation to Rotherham and other areas which have a large number of defective houses on their hands. Can he tell my council when it will get the money, so that it can write to the people concerned and tell them exactly where they stand?
In introducing the Housing Defects Bill, the Government, to put it mildly, put the cart before the horse. Hundreds of my constituents still do not know what is to happen. Some of them have had "For Sale" notices in their front gardens for over two years. Some people have been trying to sell houses and move up the housing market, but they have been denied the opportunity to do so. Although there is an Act, there is still no money for my local authority to carry out the legislation. I hope that the Minister will move quickly.
Class VIII, vote 2, relates to grants to the British Waterways Board. For the first time since becoming a Member of the House, I have had to write to the board this week because of a decision that it has taken. I give credit where it is due, and I give it to the Government for their decree that all uses of canals should be reviewed. The board has said that, for 12 months, it must remove the rights of Kiveton Park angling club to fish in the Chesterfield canal in the south of my constituency. The club has had that right since 1909. It has received a letter from the board stating that the review must be enforced, even though fishing rights may be restored after 12 months.
When aid is given to the British Waterways Board, the fact that the canals are not only used for transport but are a source of recreation should be taken into account. The South Yorkshire canal, which flows into Rotherham, has been used for many years for transport. but other canals,


such as the Chesterfield canal, are used for fishing. I ask the Minister to realise that recreational facilities on canals are important for many organisations and people. I hope that the Minister, under the aid given in the vote, will ensure that the recreational facilities and the need to improve canals are taken into account.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is not just a matter of improving canals, but of maintaining them. In Scotland, canals are deteriorating quickly. Farmers in my constituency took me round last month to see the number of leaks in the deteriorating Victorian puddling. A huge amount of work is required to keep them in their present condition, let alone to improve them. Is the same problem developing after 150 years in my hon. Friend's constituency?

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend has raised a good point. I am not always in favour of them, but many voluntary organisations and canal societies have been working for generations to stop the natural erosion of canals. When money must be spent and there is a lot of work to be done, that work cannot be done by voluntary organisations. The Minister must recognise that any provisions for expenditure must cater for the leisure side as well as for transport, which is already well catered for.
I would hate to suggest that all that the unemployed in my area have to do is to go fishing. There is a massive problem of youth unemployment in my constituency. If we cannot find them work, we have a responsibility to find them something to do, even if that means providing leisure pursuits on the canal. When the Minister is considering aid to the British Waterways Board, he must keep that in mind at all times.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to column 1079, of yesterday's Official Report, where some singularly ill-founded remarks seek in rather pathetic fashion to wax critical of a Labour authority in the north-east. The fact that they are critical does not disturb me unduly, even though they are unjustified. However, they are attributed to me. I seek your guidance on how to have my name removed from such a pathetic effort.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there has been an error in the report of what he said?

Mr. Cook: No, Sir. The statement is attributed to me, but I have no association with it. I was present at the time, but seated on the opposite side of the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall make inquiries into that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to it.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: For many environmentalists this year has been the year of the badger; for others, the focus has been on ancient monuments and the heritage, with anxious reference to Stonehenge. My remarks will relate to derelict land and urban renewal.
It is the contention of many of us from the provincial conurbations that the control of urban sprawl into the countryside is merely the converse of the more serious problems of deprivation, demoralisation and evacuation of

the older central urban areas. The interests of those who would wish to see a denial of green field development as a soft option, and the interests of those who wish to see new resources put into inner-city areas converge. They are the same interests. In all the big provincial conurbations, an enormous consensus of political will is available to the Government should they wish to draw the fairly simple conclusion that has been circulating for some time: the political interests of the periphery of our provincial conurbations, usually in the hands of the Conservative party, and those of the older urban centres, usually in the hands of the Labour party, are the same.
In my constituency, there is a sincere and genuine desire to halt the sprawl into the green field countryside. There is a genuine belief that if resources are denied to constituencies such as mine, they should be made available in the central Birmingham and the central midlands conurbations, where the fabric is badly rundown and those resources are needed. When the Minister considers class VIII, vote 3, I hope that he will bear my points in mind. He will have a ready audience if he does SO.
The green field soft option is easier for the developer than the hard, difficult urban site, such as the Saltley gasworks in Birmingham, which has underground, broken-down brickwork and poisoned earth to a considerable depth. Clearly, that site is the harder option. Initiatives must be taken to make the difficult site an attractive proposition to the developer. In this context, as other hon. Members have said, the development corporations have been an outstanding success. Development corporations have cut through and succeeded in difficult urban sites such as Merseyside and the London docklands. Even those of us who have spent a long time in local government are driven to the conclusion that development corporations often succeed because they can override local government and do not get clogged and fettered by its traditional mechanisms, which, although well-intended, are sometimes leaden-footed, negative and unhelpful.
In terms of ownership, much of the redundant land and demoralised sites in the urban conurbations are languishing in public ownership at unrealistic book values, which could have been designed to repel any interested inquirer. Such sites may be on the books of the British Waterways Board, public service undertakings, British Rail or even local authorities. People are inhibited by those unrealistic book values from putting such sites on the market. Would the Minister give some thought to a more enlightened or cavalier technique? If that brought results it might be worth the effort. Why do we not get the local authorities to acquire those sites compulsorily, at whatever price, and award comprehensive planning permissions to the sites? They could spend some money making them attractive and auction them for whatever price they will fetch. There would be only one proviso to the purchaser — whatever he chooses to do within the umbrella planning permission he should put the work in hand within a limited time. I cannot see who would be the loser from such an initiative. There would be some loss of money on the book values of publicly owned property, but those are unreal assets and perhaps the sooner they are written off the better. If what I have suggested is practical, so much the better.
I shall conclude by explaining my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet


(Mr. Chapman). I am anxious that we should not raise false hopes. Every right hon. and hon. Member is naturally anxious about unemployment and would like to think that there is a connection between spending more money on construcion and alleviating some unemployment. It would be irresponsible for any Member to raise false hopes. We should all take account of two important discounts. The first is that many major construction programmes are not labour intensive. The second — I am afraid that this example is anecdotal and a rather cautionary tale — relates to a conversation that I had recently with a major civil engineering contractor from the Wolverhampton area. He had one of the final stages of the M54 contract, the Telford motorway, just north of Wolverhampton. He advertised in Wolverhampton where unemployment is high for men to work at good pay on the final stages of the motorway. There was no take up from that advertising campaign. That civil engineering contractor was puzzled and anxious about the reasons for that lack of response.
In the closing days of the West Midlands county council, I should like to say that its forays into healing derelict land has been one of its successes. I contrast that with one of its more recent initiatives when it decided to go to Dublin to discover why Irish tinkers come to Britain. That decision was given some publicity recently. The matter comes within the ambit of the debate. The authority did not have to go so far to find the answers. I am sad that in its late stages, that authority should approach the difficult problem of tinkers and gipsies in that far-flung and self-indulgent way.
The Minister may not be competent to address that matter, but I am looking forward to his reply. I am sure that I shall enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those of us who are not members of the Select Committee are probably in a better position than those who are, to thank our colleagues of all parties who are members. The House does not pay sufficient attention to the hard work that they do. Whatever their conclusions, it behoves those of us who benefit from the work to say thank you.
It is normal to excuse oneself for not following a previous speaker, but I should like to follow the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). We are discussing matters quietly, and I believe that there is an important and serious point to be made about what he said. I must concede that there is some truth in the fact that it is easy to say, "Yes, let us have public expenditure. Let us spend on infrastructure and there will be many more jobs." That case is rather spoilt by exaggerration, but I believe that there is a great deal of potential work in many projects.
One or two colleagues and I were told last year by the Institution of Civil Engineers that for every £100 million spent on sewers at least £55 million would return to the Exchequer in one form or another. The point relates to social accounting. The Severn-Trent water authority representative argued that although one had to take with a pinch of salt the amount of employment that would be created—I agree with that—by sewer reconstruction, if more people were employed that would result in less unemployment benefit being paid, more people paying

taxes and more prosperous firms. That catalogue is familiar to the House. Less would also be paid in national insurance, housing benefit and various other benefits. A major sewer programme is needed, because hardly a week goes by without us reading in our local newspapers of major roads crumbling over Victorian sewers. If one takes account of the social cost, is a major sewer reconstruction programme as costly as is made out?
I should have liked to be a fly on the wall at the Cabinet meeting this morning which discussed the Government's public expenditure problems. I hope that some Ministers—I do not like to put it this way—had the wit to ask what the cost of a major programme would be. I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull that a case can be brought into disrepute by being over-egged, but, nevertheless is there not something to be said for major capital programmes? How much do they cost? How much will doing something about the waterways cost?
I am one of the few Labour Members who represent a large number of farmers. During the rainy weather last month I was taken around some waterways by friends of mine who are farmers. Mr. Sandy Manson of the Pardovan farm near a canal between Edinburgh and Glasgow showed me point after point where the canal was leaking.
The time has passed for minor repairs or patching. Civil servants at the Scottish Office or the Department of the Environment who are involved with the environment must understand that sooner or later the problem must be tackled. Every five years that passes, the problem worsens. The clay and the puddling deteriorate. The Victorians built well, but the canals cannot be expected to last for ever. At some time, someone, somewhere, will have to do something about them. What is true of Scotland is true of south Northumberland and north Durham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) knows well. I suspect that the problem is repeated in south Yorkshire, Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a further point, which is perhaps rather better illustrated by the analogy of motorways than canals? If we spend 2 per cent. more on motorway construction than is being spent at the moment, motorways will last for considerably longer. If we put more money into quality construction, it lasts longer and therefore less has to be spent on repairs.

Mr. Dalyell: I endorse that point strongly. Last Friday week, Scottish Labour Members were guests of the RAC and AA in Glasgow. They made the point that there had been skimping—I shall not bore the House with the details—on some of the motorway foundations. We are reaping endless trouble from that. This raises the issue of road repairs and potholes and the fact that if repairs are not done roads will deteriorate.
I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on the question of housing. The city of Glasgow has worked miracles in the past five years. When people see what can be done to raise the row by relatively small sectors that are "outstanding", to use the word of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, great advances can be made.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I have listened to my hon. Friend, and surely he agrees that the converse is also true. Local authorities are unable to complete the clearing of an area to build better houses because of


Government cuts in housing. People are left in limbo because they cannot pay the compensation necessary to clear the area, and instead of making improvements the area is left like a battlefield.

Mr. Dalyell: It is awful when the job of clearing cannot be finished. My hon. Friend knows more about housing policy than I do, so I simply endorse what he says. When there is not the money to finish the job, it is extremely wasteful over a period of time.
I represent a fairly small local authority, West Lothian district council, with which I have an excellent relationship and for which I have the greatest respect. Even a small authority such as that needs £190 million to £200 million for necessary repairs. That does not include luxuries or frivolous work, as was confirmed by the director of finance, Mr. Stanley Stirton, and others. Those may seem staggering sums, but I return to the social calculations. Such repair work will take people off the unemployment register. Bearing in mind the cost of unemployment and housing benefits, and the potential income from national insurance and extra taxes, how much does it cost to employ people when we have 25 per cent. or so unemployed and the possible withdrawal of British Leyland, Bathgate and the closure of the Polkemmet pit?
These are urgent issues for a community such as I represent. I hope that during this quiet debate we can have a reflective answer from a reflective Minister, who has not been afraid to speak his mind on other matters.
The work that could be done if more funds were given to the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland is also labour intensive. I am told that if the £22 million for the national heritage memorial fund under class VIII, vote 4 were doubled, contractors could employ far more young people in the traditional crafts such as stonemasonry, lead piping, lead roofing and the rather difficult plumbing in an old building. Moreover, a great deal of the money which would be paid out would return to the Exchequer.
I went on a brief visit with the Historic Buildings Council to Methuen castle three weeks ago. The contractors I met there explained at great lenght the need for a little more money and said that they could then go ahead with more projects. That would create a difference in employment in rural areas.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that many of the heritage and conservation programmes are indeed labour intensive. I make that intervention to balance what I said earlier.

Mr. Dalyell: In a sense, there is cross-party agreement on this matter. I hope that Ministers will note that and reflect on it.
Class VIII, vote 4 relates to redundant churches. Something must be done, and quickly. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and I have been on heritage visits together. He knows exactly what the problem is. Time is often not on our side when the fabric is deteriorating.
Class VIII, vote 2 refers to the additional responsibilities taken on by the Nature Conservancy Council. I have asked this question before. Because of what has been learnt at Halvergate and elsewhere, has not the time come when, rather than pay out money to people who are doing

what they ought not to be doing, we should consider listing sites of scientific or special interest in relation to nature reserves, such as we automatically accept for buildings?
It is difficult to make the point properly during Question Time, but the matter came up yesterday during Environment questions. It is all very well for the Minister to say that £50 an acre is being paid out all over Halvergate, but that represents quite a bit of money if it is repeated throughout Britain. Is this really a proper thing to do? Is it not time that the Government considered listing?
Class VIII, vote 3 deals with derelict land. It is extraordinary that, so long after 1945, and unlike any other country in Europe, there seems to be derelict land in all of our constituencies. I am a passionate believer in local authorities. Could not some policy be worked out with them to enable them to do something about the problem? Here again, the solution is labour intensive.
I shall not trespass on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), but those of us who have the problem of travelling people in our constituencies feel that more could be done to provide them with sites. It is an extremely sensitive issue. The attitude in my constituency is, "Yes, we must have facilities for travelling people, but not next to me." That is a familiar feeling. Problems are created, however, by the failure to provide facilities.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) came on board the royal research ship Charles Darwin—I was glad to see him there—when some of us were invited to do so by the Natural Environment Research Council. It is just by HMS Belfast in the pool of London. Although I am relating the problem to class VIII, vote 5, the problem is that many Departments are involved. Professor Sir Malcolm Brown, the head of Keyworth, explained that his work is made difficult because it depends partly on the Department of the Environment, partly on the Department of Education and Science and partly on the Ministry of Defence, so consideration goes all around Whitehall.
If the Minister says that my question must be answered by the Department of Education and Science I shall not quarrel about it, but I would like to know about the ocean drilling programme. It is a matter of shame to our country if we cannot afford the candidate membership of that programme. We were to have been partners with the United States, Canada, Japan, France and Germany. We have a great deal of expertise, and all those who went on the Charles Darwin must have been impressed by the well-known international calibre of British scientists working in this area of activity. Something should be done.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act features in the Estimates. Endless time was occupied in Committee discussing marine nature reserves. Having recently visited the marine biological laboratory at Plymouth and talked to the director, I understand that there are problems at Penzance and Lundy. I suspect that the marine nature reserves have not got off the ground, partly because of the resistance of fishermen. They are afraid that the inspectors are connected with Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes. The last people the fishermen want to see are tax inspectors. Has the Department of the Environment any view to offer about the delay at Lundy and in the Scillies and, as a Scot, more urgently for me, about the fiasco of St. Abb's Head? Furthermore, it is most important that something should be done fairly soon about Loch Sween.
I put down a question yesterday about the Property Services Agency:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will give a breakdown of the £89 million required for the progress of the Mount Pleasant airport in the Falklands after 1 June.
In his reply the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
It is not the practice to disclose rates for particular components of Government contracts, but I can say that essentially the sum covers the balance of work to complete the secondary runway, aircraft apron, roads, buildings and services, together with the site clearance of temporary facilities when construction ceases and the usual provisions for retention pending the expiry of maintenance periods on work already completed."—[Official Report, 10 July 1985.]
I wonder, as my hon. Friends on the Front Bench may wonder, what would have happened to Liverpool, Lambeth and some of the other local authorities in London if they had suddenly decided to spend £89 million? Yet this happened without a cheep. The Falklands expenditure is sacrosanct. No local authority could get away with expenditure of that kind.

Mr. Cowans: They would have been rate capped.

Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend says, they would have been rate capped. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. Time after time I used to bore people stiff—[Hon. Members: "Never."]—by asking about the cost of the airport. Even those civil servants who should not be here are laughing. Every time the answer, carefully costed, was that it would cost no more than £215 million and that there would be absolute cost control.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend never bores the House by drawing attention to the peculiarly perverted values of the Government about Falkland Islands expenditure. Does he accept that if the money that was spent on the airport in the Falklands had been used in the London borough of Newham, it would have solved its housing problems?

Mr. Dalyell: This has come to be known as the Margaret Thatcher international airport. Its financial history is revealing. It started at £215 million. Time after time the cost was said to be £215 million. Then it edged up to £240 million. By some alchemy, it then rose to £360 million. From 1 June another £89 million had to be added. We also find that the "wide awake" airport at Ascension Island is to cost another £49 million. The cost is already over £500 million and it is edging steadily upwards. What has happened to the monitoring of PSA expenditure? All that the Under-Secretary of State, who is a nice man, can do is to give a watery smile. If I were talking nonsense, he would be down my throat. There is one law for military expenditure and another for local authority expenditure. It is not a sensible way to run a country.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Tempted though I am to follow in some detail the breadth and depth of this debate, I shall return to some of the issues that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi).
On the Department of the Environment Estimates, the mobility ratio of local authority housing is very important if we are to encourage those who might wish to seek jobs in the more prosperous parts of the country to move. It is

not just a question of increasing the percentage of stock that is put aside from 1 per cent. to perhaps 2 per cent., important though that is. What worries me is that many authorities do not participate in the mobility scheme. I single out in particular Scottish local authorities. Scotland has higher than average unemployment. One might think that there would be a ready willingness to co-operate with other local authorities by asking them to make available a percentage of their stock. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider how the mobility scheme could be strengthened.
My second point, on improvement grants, was mentioned not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green but by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). There has been a massive increase in expenditure on improvement grants. A more discriminatory policy in terms of need is appropriate but it is a much more complex problem than that. In the prosperous parts of the south-east it is common for the price of houses that need to be improved to be inflated, in the sure and certain knowledge that the purchaser will be able to secure an improvement grant. In such areas as north-east Lancashire, however, where the average price of a house is much lower, an improvement grant may result in an even lower price being obtained on the open market. A loan system may work in some areas but not in others. I hope that this point will be taken into account during both this discussion and subsequent discussions on the Green Paper.
As for canals, I have to declare an interest as a member of the amenity advisory council of the Inland Waterways Association and as the chairman of the all-party waterways group. Having press-ganged the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) into becoming secretary of the group, I am pleased that he has spoken on the subject so soon after his appointment. I hope that we shall hear often from him on the subject. It is only fair to say that the Government have increased substantially the resources of the British Waterways Board. That has enabled it to clear up the backlog of work and make improvements. This is already evident in many projects. However, the BWB could do much more to help itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) referred to the use of redundant land. That is true of other under-utilised assets. An example is Lock Cottage at Cow Roast in my constituency which is tenanted by Mr. and Mrs. Kent. When it offered to sell the cottage, the BWB's valuation was £65,000. I sought three other valuations from professional valuers in the area. The average valuation was £45,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said, that is typical. The BWB did not want the valuation to be carried out by an independent valuer. I suggested that somebody should be appointed by the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers. However, the BWB was determined not to realise that asset.
Finally, I wish to refer to the thorny and vexed question of gipsy sites, which is not as easy as has been suggested. I have served on a local authority — Chiltern district council — which sought and obtained designation. As soon as the expenditure on the sites had been put in hand and we had bright, new and clean gipsy sites, the so-called gipsies moved in and vandalised them and demolished


everything that was there. It was totally wasted expenditure. I wonder what value for money we get from some of those schemes.
On the other hand, my own local authority in Dacorum is being flooded by travellers not just from boroughs and districts that have obtained designation but by some people who have been evicted from the Molesworth protest site. We are trying in vain to achieve designation but are frustrated time and again by the changing criteria which reflect the fact that people see our area as a transit camp on the way to getting a site at one of the new official gipsy locations. The whole system of gipsy sites needs to be carefully examined.
With regard to the Property Services Agency Estimates, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred to the inadequacy of the local discretion given to managers. A sum of £1,000 is a small sum over which to have jurisdiction when putting out work. That would not be so bad if, as a result, there was not duplication. A local manager, given the opportunity to put out a project for under £1,000, may discover later that, because it has been many years since the application was made and it has only now reached the end of the pipeline, it is being let as part of a major contract. Such duplication occurs far more frequently than the PSA is prepared to admit.
The PSA is a notoriously slow payer and thus it is difficult to attract competitive bids at the local small or major level. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will give the PSA a firm kick up the backside to make it pay more promptly for the services that it commissions.
Perhaps at this stage the existence of the PSA should be considered and a decision reached on whether it should be divided among other Departments or eradicated. Even if the PSA remains in existence, there is some merit in placing it under an obligation to follow the rules and regulations that govern local authorities under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. For example, why are local authorities obliged to put out to tender a cross-section of one third of their ordinary maintenance work but the same obligation does not apply to the PSA? That is certainly food for thought when the Minister considers the PSA.
I should like to add my voice to that of many of my colleagues in congratulating our Committee Chairman on the way that he leads us. It is always pleasant to serve on a ship where the captain has a firm hand on the tiller and where he shows such clarity of thought as the present incumbent. In saying that, I am sure that I speak for those of all political parties.

Mr. Peter Pike: I wish to refer to a few items within the Department of the Environment's Estimates. Dog licences, which are referred to in the Select Committee report, were also mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell).
There is a need to remove the present crazy anomaly whereby the collection of the dog licence fee amounts to more than the revenue from the licence. However, from my own experience in Burnley I have learnt that much controversy surrounds dog issues. I strongly advise that it should not be left to local authorities to determine the amount of the licence fee. There should be a nationally

based fee to avoid the inevitable comparisons which would be made if authorities were allowed to set the fee themselves.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the revenue should be used to provide services such as dog wardens, and certainly Burnley would like an additional dog warden. Due to the present Government restraint, it has been unable to employ another warden. Despite the controversies arising in Burnley from the dog ban in certain parks — I stress "certain" because only a relatively small area has been affected by the ban—it is a reasonable compromise which has been overwhelmingly accepted. I believe that the Department of the Environment should consider the matter and give more advice to other authorities that wish to follow in that direction. The advice given could be based on the experiences and problems that we encountered in Burnley, which I believe can be blamed on both the council and the people who opposed that ban. In certain parks children can play on the grass without fear of being covered in dog dirt, which is welcome to many parents, yet in other parks, usually in close proximity, dogs are allowed.
Canals have been referred to in the debate. That is an item of great importance to a constituency such as mine, through which the Leeds and Liverpool canal runs. Lancashire Enterprises Ltd., a subsidiary of Lancashire county council, has formulated a programme to improve the canal and bring it back to standard. That applies only to the section of the canal in the Lancashire county area. The cost of the scheme to revitalise it is the staggering figure of £81 million. The company hopes to fund certain sections of the canal, depending on the areas that it goes through, through urban development grants, the urban programme, Manpower Services Commission schemes and other assistance from the Government. If we are to deal with the important problem of canals and waterways that need urgent attention, we have to ensure that the British Waterways Board and other bodies involved have the necessary resources to tackle it.
Many difficulties arise from all the different aspects of the urban programme. Some of those items are now being considered by the Government. There are many anomalies under the traditional urban programme. Many people are disappointed this year at the allocations that were given to them. It seems a bit of a nonsense to invite all authorities to apply to the urban programme when there are insufficient resources to allocate. It might be more appropriate to concentrate resources on areas of urban deprivation if they are limited.
There are programme authorities, partnership authorities and designated authorities. There are many anomalies among them, too. I, for one, cannot see why expenditure arising under the urban programme can be disregarded for penalty purposes for programme or partnership authorities, but not for designated authorities. To me it is only a matter of degree.
I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that his borough was not a partnership authority whereas Islington is. That shows the great uncertainty about how authorities are designated. The Under-Secretary will say that there are different categories of local authorities and different headings of deprivation, and one has to be classified under so many of those headings to qualify. However, when one looks at some of the authorities, one stands back and says, "I wonder why that one has managed to achieve that status


and the other one has not." Burnley is a designated authority, yet two authorities on either side, Pendle and Hyndburn, which are very similar, do not have that status.

Mr. Tony Banks: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It does not make sense to Newham borough council. We look at those authorities close by which are partnership authorities or programme authorities. I do not want anyone to think that I was suggesting that Newham wants to take something away from the surrounding borough, which we know is also deprived. It is very difficult for us to explain to the people of Newham why Tower Hamlets, Islington and Hackney and other nearby boroughs get special support while we do not.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend has made the point very well. I take exactly the same view of Blackburn, which is close to Burnley. Those of us in Burnley would not wish Blackburn to lose its higher classification. It is extremely strange that Pendle and Hyndburn have no classification. We need to see whether this programme is catching all the authorities as it should be doing.
On the matter of grants, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) referred in particular to north-east Lancashire. I referred to that subject in the Select Committee when we were discussing the Estimates. The Government will have to consider carefully the implications of their Green Paper. Too often the Government look at housing as it is in London without looking at valuations and other factors in the provinces. In Manchester and Liverpool, the problems are very different from those only 24 miles away in Burnley, in north-east Lancashire, where property values are much lower. In those areas, if a person improves his house, the selling value, after his own share and the contribution from grants, will be less than the value for which that property could still be sold. That is one reason why council house rents are far too high. We had to increase them because of Government policy, and now semi-detached council houses are empty because people can buy terraced houses far more cheaply.
The Government should consider carefully before making changes in grants. There is abuse, and when the Minister for Housing and Construction came to Burnley last year he saw the problem for himself. He did not go on the exact tour that we had planned, because when we were driving round the streets of Burnley he suddenly said, "Stop the car, I want to get out." He went to the nearest person on the street and said, "I want to see your house." The house he want into proved the very point that the Government should look at closely. It was a house that had been improved on a grant; the grant was insufficient, and the house needed another grant to bring it up to scratch.
The Government should give councils the authority to inspect all work to make sure that contractors carry it out to the proper standard, and they should give councils the financial resources, powers and staff to do that work. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be anxious to ensure that we get value for money. If the grants system is abused, whether by contractors or by anybody else, we should be concerned about it because it is a waste of public money which could be better used to make sure that other houses are brought up to standard. I accept that this may not be a major problem, but in my area the problem does exist. As I have said, the Minister for Housing and

Construction saw it for himself, not through any planning by Burnley borough council, but purely because he stopped the car and wanted to look at a house immediately.
The Opposition have a right to argue about insufficient resources—and resources are insufficient—but I have always accepted that the Government have the right to limit the amount of money available whether we like it or not. My biggest objection is that this Government seem to believe that councils should not have the additional rights to determine at local level what they wish to spend and what additional resources they want to put in. Whichever political party is in government and however much I might disagree with the figure that the Government have fixed, they have a right to say what money they will put in. But councils should be given the freedom to raise money locally to tackle the jobs and problems that they were elected to tackle.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is always a pleasure but a daunting task to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), whose knowledge of local government matters is unrivalled in this House. He was a distinguished leader of Burnley council.
For obvious reasons I should like to speak about the Government's housing policy in London. There must be something wrong with their policy on housing, because the Duke of Edinburgh, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) have all said at different times that the Government have got it wrong. That is a most distinguished trinity of Establishment noses to get up. I hope the Minister is thinking carefully about the critics of housing policy among the Establishment, and not just among the Opposition.
It is arguable that the Government have not one housing policy but two — one for votes and one for public spending. Their votes policy appears to be to spare no expense to encourage or woo people into becoming owner-occupiers in the belief that home owners vote Tory. The policy is matched by a number of Labour Members who seem to think that all council tenants vote Labour. Both concepts are mistaken.
Changing the legal terms under which people occupy their homes does nothing to solve our housing problems. Put simply, there are not enough homes to go round and the homes that we have are decaying rapidly. The Government's public spending policy is to concentrate cuts on public investment on housing in order to compensate for their failure to keep other areas of public spending under control. Since 1979–80 London has suffered a cumulative loss of more than £3,000 million, and provision for public investment in London's housing has been chopped by two thirds.
London's housing problems are enormous and grave. The fabric of houses is deteriorating and 640,000 London homes are unsatisfactory. Many of them are in the private sector. Homelessness is increasing. Last year, there were 25,000 homeless families in London, with 3,000 of them in bed and breakfast accommodation. Waiting lists are lengthy; there are 500,000 people on the waiting list in London alone. In 1982 the Government stopped keeping separate figures for unemployed construction workers, but then there were about 40,000 such workers on the dole in London.
Building figures are heading for new lows. Only 4,000 new council homes were started in London last year compared with 25,000 in the mid-1970s. The forecast is that performance will drop still further. The Government are now trying to hush things up hoping that nobody will notice how bad they are. In mid-June, The Guardian reported that, although the Government were committed to another survey in 1986 of the condition of the nation's housing stock, they intend to fiddle the definition of unfit property to make it appear that the situation is not getting worse.
In the Department of the Environment the Minister is seen as the personification of a human punchbag because of the way in which he keeps getting put up to deal with these unpopular subjects. I hope that he will confirm or deny that story which appeared in The Guardian in June. In the six years since the Prime Minister came to office, her Government have made no attempt to discover what the real housing need is, despite repeated requests to do SO.
Indeed, it has been left up to the Royal Family. I admit at once that the Duke of Edinburgh is not a person I have always associated with housing need. However, the inquiry into British housing, chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh, found that housing need is a national scandal. On all the international comparisons, we come out bottom of the league. On the number of homes produced per 1,000 inhabitants, we are bottom; on housing investment as a percentage of GDP, we are bottom; on gross fixed residential construction as a proportion of GDP, we are bottom. That list emerged from the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry, and in each case we came below countries such as Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Iceland and Ireland as well as the richer western economies.
In 1983 the Conservative manifesto claimed that the Government would make Britain
the best housed nation in Europe".
It is about time that they explained what happened to that commitment and why that promise has apparently been abandoned.
Class VII, vote 1, relates to general subsidies to local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) pointed out, this item has been reduced drastically since 1979 when general subsidies to local authorities amounted to £1,300 million. This year they have been cut to £400 million. But in real terms the cut has been that much greater, and the mechanisms have been draconian increases in council house rents and savage cuts in housing programmes that have reduced the rate of creation of new debt.
In a surprisingly frank piece of drafting in the introduction to class VII, vote 1, it admits that the purpose of driving up rents and slashing investment was to drive people into becoming home owners. It states:
The underlying downward trend of entitlement to section A subsidies reflects the emphasis on increasing home ownership through the sale of council dwellings and lower capital expenditure on new public sector provision.
There is no other justification for that than an ideological one.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will my hon. Friend also note that one of the results of the way in which the Government have forced public sector rents up over the past three or four years has been that throughout the country most housing

revenue accounts are now in surplus? That means that rent payers are subsidising the ratepayers. Is not that a gross misuse of rent funds?

Mr. Banks: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
The figures in the Estimates are only gross Exchequer subsidies. But according to some sources, services on council houses in many areas result nationally in council housing making a net profit and receiving no subsidy at all. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? A number of Conservative councils — Wandsworth is one — have pushed up rents as a way of transferring money from the publicly rented sector to subsidise those in the private sector as well as ratepayers generally. That is a gross abuse of housing revenue accounts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said that council rents have been forced up. Since 1979, rents have risen by double the rate of inflation. In that year, average rents in London were £7·93, but by 1984 they had risen to more than £17—an increase of more than 125 per cent. Rising rents contribute to inflation, but that does not seem to concern the Government because in their mind it appears that inflation is unimportant when its effects impinge mainly on council tenants.
The Government will no doubt say that the increases were necessary to catch up on the Labour years when rents fell behind, but they have gone much further than that. Until there was a marginal fall in the last couple of years, they pushed up rents so far that they accounted for a higher proportion of male manual earnings than at any time since the war.
The Government's traditional response has been that rent increases do not matter very much in the council sector because the poor are protected by housing benefits. A total of 65 per cent. of council tenants in Newham receive housing benefits, but the shambles of that system means that the poor have never been protected. Still less will that be true in the future because the Secretary of Slate for Social Services plans to take £500 million of that benefit away from the poor and the old.
General subsidies also include help towards the cost of managing and maintaining council estates. The effect of cutting back, combined with block grant penalties and rate capping, has been to pressure councils into reducing the number of caretakers and the regularity of maintenance — the very factors that the Department of the Environment has identified as being central to good management. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment had the gall to stand up at the Institute of Housing conference in Harrogate last month and tell local authorities that they had failed their tenants. He announced that he was setting up a new unit, to be called the urban housing renewal unit, to privatise the estates. In fact, the Government have set up a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Government are obsessed with home ownership at the expense of everything else. They are fond of quoting surveys that show that most people want, and expect, to be home owners. That is hardly surprising, given the choices on offer. Many people now see home ownership as their best bet, and no one denies that owner-occupation has a dominant role to play. However, those who are excluded from home ownership, of whom there are large numbers in London, should riot be made to pay such a heavy price.
I never miss the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the housing problem in Newham. The council, together with the Newham Chamber of Commerce, the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council, the Newham Council for Racial Equality, the Newham health authority and the GLC, wrote on 5 July to the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, the Environment, the Home Department, Education and Science, Employment and Social Services. They made out an undeniable case for partnership status for the London borough of Newham. Indeed, the Minister knows that we have an undeniable case, So why does his Department still deny us the undeniable?
There is a severe shortage of homes in my borough. It is currently estimated at almost 3,000. Homelessness is now higher than ever before. More than half the privately owned homes in Newham are unsatisfactory, either through disrepair or a lack of bath or inside toilet.
One tends to associate Labour boroughs with high concentrations of council tenancy, but in my constituency more than 50 per cent. of people are owner-occupiers. However, the houses that they occupy are in grave need of repair — and that terrible problem is being exacerbated by Government policies.
Nearly a quarter of council accommodation is situated in the 112 tower blocks, and more than 800 families with young children who live in those blocks are waiting to be rehoused. We desperately need assistance from the Minister. He knows what is going on in the borough of Newham. He knows the problems associated with Ronan Point and the TWA blocks. What extra assistance will he give to the Newham council to deal with the problems that he knows exist? He has been to the borough and has seen them for himself. When may we expect to be given the partnership status that we so desperately need?
My last point is on class VII, vote 2. It is only a small amount in terms of overall subsidies, but it brings me back to a point which came up during the passage of the Local Government Bill on Monday—when the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said that he supported the guillotine motion because he wanted to brush out of the way the embarrassment of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Let me bring it straight back to the House. In class VII, vote 2, section B1(2) deals with
Discretionary grants and loans towards the cost of arrangements to facilitate public sector tenant mobility under section 46 of the Housing Act 1980.
It provides £75,000. This is the code of the national mobility office — four and a half persons in a semi-quango running the national mobility scheme — which the Government propose should take on the Greater London mobility scheme and the seaside and country homes scheme.
The Estimates show just how absurd that is as a proposal from a Government who believe that the national mobility office is the appropriate body to take on these major functions. The cost of the two GLC schemes is at least 10 times that of the present office of the national mobility scheme. Can the Minister tell us what will be the cost of section B1(2) in 1986–87, since the Government have already made it clear that they will pick up the bill

for the Londonwide mobility scheme and for the seaside and country homes scheme. How does that square with the Government's claim that abolition will save money?

Mr. John Fraser: We are all very grateful to the Select Committee for picking out a number of matters and I do not intend to comment on more than a few, but perhaps I could start with gipsy sites. We all know that gipsies arouse strong feeling. When I have visited a gipsy site I have been given advice in what might be described as unparliamentary language. I thought I had to put my camera in my case rather than somewhere else. When one talks to the neighbours one is often approached in unparliamentary language as well. Nobody denies there is a difficulty about gipsies and travellers, but we need to get it in proportion.
As the Select Committee points out, there are roughly 10,000 travellers — about 20 traveller families per district or borough—in England and it should not be beyond the will of the boroughs to make provision for gipsy sites. Many authorities which are very hard pressed—I include my own in Lambeth—have honoured their responsibilities and some have neglected them. But there is no longer any excuse for dereliction of duty because gipsies are not popular. The fact that sites are not provided does not make the problem any easier. It simply shifts it somewhere else and in an unplanned way. The seasonal pattern of settlement by travellers needs to be looked at. My observation in Lambeth is that they tend to come into the city in winter and move out during the summer. There may be seasonal variations in other parts of England. It would be worth while looking at whether seasonal camp sites for travellers might meet part of the problem. I hope the Government will get the recalcitrant local authorities to do their duty, particularly since the Government are paying 100 per cent. of the cost.
I make no apology for mentioning a constituency point about the urban programme. I represent a borough which is in an inner-city partnership. Last year we had a net benefit, because the Government pay 75 per cent. of the cost of the inner city partnership, of about £10 million. That seems generous, but of that £10 million half went to voluntary organisations. My borough disperses a good deal of money among voluntary organisations. Only half of it went to what might be called statutory schemes. The net benefit to Lambeth council, which is in an inner city partnership, was £5 million.
Last year, penalties imposed on Lambeth council amounted to £15 million. For every pound that was being put in the collection plate, £3 was being stolen from the vestry. This borough is one of the third most deprived in the country and it is now engaged in a battle with the district auditor as to whether its conduct of affairs in Lambeth has been in order. I hope the Minister will have some regard, even at this late stage, to the financial responsibilities of boroughs such as Lambeth.
The urban programme imposes a very heavy burden as programmes become time expired and need to be picked up by the local authority. I hope the Minister's department will recognise the great burdens that are placed on these authorities and the fact that they are being fined. Last year my borough was fined £3 for every pound net which went into its coffers. If one sets this against the aid which one sees in the Estimates going to the London Docklands development corporation—£50 million with 20 per cent.


going on administration expenses—it does not appear that the same discipline applies there. The same kind of discipline does not apply in Islington as in Lambeth. I am sure that the results of expenditure by the local authority within the inner city partnership in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are that houses are selling at £250,000. The contrast between the expenditure which the docklands corporation is liable to undertake and the penalties imposed on almost every single partnership authority shows that there is no justice as between the two.
Mobility means being able to move from one part of the country to another, which is a matter close to the hearts of many local authority tenants. When people talk about the right to buy and own their own homes, they are talking not merely about ownership itself but about the incidence of ownership, the freedom to be able to move from one part of the country to another in order to be near a relative or to obtain a job or simply because they choose to move. I have every sympathy with them, but the Estimates show that there is very little consistency in the help offered.
Last year there was a one in 450 chance of a local authority tenant moving under the two mobility schemes mentioned in the Select Committee report. The average Government contribution per move was £28·92 for local authority tenants. If one were a housing association tenant and that housing association was not a charity, the contribution to mobility costs would be nil. If, on the other hand, one was a tenant of a charitable housing association and was able to claim the discount and buy a house in another part of the country, the maximum contribution to the tenant of the charitable housing association would be £24,000, 60 per cent. of the maximum cost of £40,000. There can be no justification for such wide inconsistencies as between one group of occupants and another. Bearing in mind that people attach great importance to being able to move from one part of the country to another, I hope that the Government will see what can be done to improve the chances of transferability.
We have an enforced mobility time bomb ticking away when, towards the end of July, many thousands of young people in London in receipt of help with bed and breakfast from the Department of Health and Social Security will be forced out of accommodation because the Government are intent on saving money by abolishing this benefit.
I turn to class VII Vote 1 and I take as my text part of paragraph 14 of the Select Committee report which says:
It seems certain that there is a very large backlog of housing maintenance at the present day and, against that background, it seems to us imperative that the available resources are appropriately distributed between the private and public sectors. No one knows at present if that is being done.
We do know something about what is being done. First of all, we know that the Estimates before the House are wholly inadequate to preserve, let alone improve, the housing stock in both the public and private sectors. The Department of the Environment has engaged on a policy of economic lunacy. Those are not my words but the words of many Government Members used in debates on capital expenditure. That Department and its Secretary of State has become a housing Nero fiddling while Britain crumbles.
I use the word "fiddling" because that is exactly what it has done with capital receipts. The Government introduced a right to buy. They argued that the money could be reinvested in housing, that money gathered in was

the local authority's own funds. Now we find that £6,000 million at least stored in the coffers of local authorities cannot be spent in order that the Chancellor may balance his books. That money belongs to the local authorities, and was provided from private funds. I can give some examples of the idiocy of the Government's policy.
A couple of weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), I went to Sefton, which is a Conservative local authority which takes its housing responsibilities seriously. In parts of the borough, the local authority is selling houses to Barratt and Wimpey to try to get some help from the private sector, as the Government have urged, to improve some of its housing stock. It is not always the older housing stock that needs improving most —sometimes the newer housing stock needs it more.
When the work is done by one of these firms, that is private expenditure and the Government are in favour of it. When the local authority sells some of its property or sites, the money has come from building firms, banks, insurance companies and institutions and is therefore private. However, the moment that it passes into the hands of the council, it becomes subject to a surcharge of 80 per cent., so that 80 per cent. of it cannot be spent. That is economic lunacy.
I can give another example, this time of a Labour authority that I visited recently, Gateshead. It is an inner-city partnership authority, recognised for its needs in housing and for its area's dereliction and unemployment. It receives no housing subsidy from the Government but it does receive money for environmental improvement. The people of Gateshead cannot understand why the Government are giving them money, through a vote for environmental improvements such as putting up trees and putting in colour paving, projects of which I am in favour, while, because of the restriction of the housing investment programme, they cannot spend money on properties. The council can put down pink paving stones but it cannot put roofs on houses.
The Government have an economic rain dance, but the only economic effect is that the rain is coming through peoples' roofs. Gateshead authority has £30 million tied up in capital receipts. What on earth can be the justification for urging an authority to engage in environmental improvements and then preventing it from spending its money on problems such as those at the Newcastle flats where there is the particularly difficult and expensive job of providing bathrooms and internal WCs?
I can give yet another example, this time the Tory-controlled Rushmoor council. It is one of the councils that opposed the abolition of the GLC because it has such a large stock of ex-GLC homes that are in need of major renovation. I have the minutes of a council meeting. There is now a new classification of the housing investment bid. One can make a bid for what one thinks one needs, and one can make a second bid for what one thinks one can get. One is called the proposed programme and the other is called the constrained programme.
I shall take Rushmoor's proposed programme because it seems a fair estimate of what needs to be spent on the renovation, construction and insulation of dwellings. The programme for 1986–87 would cost £12 million. The minutes say:
The constrained programme would not allow the Council to carry out its policy of carrying out the Prospect Estate remedial work to 100 units per year for 1986/87".


It says that there is no way that it can discharge its responsibility under the present constrained programme arrangements. However, there is a way that it can do so, because it has £12 million locked up in capital receipts. There is a Tory local authority that, given the chance, would be able to spend money and undertake its responsibilities but is prevented from doing so. Therefore, my comment that the Government are fiddling while the housing stock crumbles is justified.
The Select Committee said that it was not sure of the scale of the problem in the private sector. However, I have a fair idea. I now know that there are 250,000 private owner-occupiers who are mostly poor and with very few capital resources, and who were left in the lurch once the Government ended the pre-election boom in improvement grants. We know their needs. We do not have the English figures, but we know from the Welsh figures that most of the people who pick up repair and improvement grants have little money in the bank and no income. That boom has come to an end. There is little opportunity of those people being able to get improvement grants even under the Government's new means-tested and mean scheme, which has had a pretty widespread thumbs down as to its possible success.
I am sure that every hon. Member has people coming to his advice bureau every week, and some of the circumstances are tragic. Last week, a retired man came to see me. Simply because he is an owner-occupier, he is not entitled to supplementary benefit. He gets only his retirement pension. He has suffered a stroke, and water is pouring through his owner-occupied house. That case is not untypical and there is no way in which we can help that man and many like him, given the present constrained state of the housing investment programme. That is not just bad policy but immoral, particularly in the case of those who were led to believe that they would get grants from Government.
The Government's policy is not merely a fiddle but is incompetent, as the Controller of Audit put it in his speech at the Institute of Housing conference. He put
a price on the waste and inefficiency resulting from present controls on local government capital spending. The figure is a staggering £50 billion … If I were asked to design a system that would produce more waste and inefficiency to control capital expenditure, it is not immediately certain what additional complications I would build in".
The system is not just dishonest, it is inefficient. The Government sometimes say that they do not know how much money there is in capital receipts. I have an answer to a parliamentary question yesterday. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what the total of capital receipts from the sale of council houses in the last financial year was, and I was told £1·3 billion.
Last year, local authorities were not allowed to spend that £1·3 billion, which was taken from private sources. They were allowed to spend 40 per cent. of it and £600 million of it was sequestrated — sequestration has become not merely a function of, but an obsession with, the Government. If the same rate of capital receipts continues in 1985–86, local authorities will be denied £1 billion in capital receipts, from the payment of mortgages and the sale of council houses, which they could spend on improvement and repair. That is equivalent to 100,000 jobs for a year being thrown away by local authorities not being able to spend their own money. That figure was

arrived at without trying to use the additional figures of the extra jobs that would be created as a result of the multiplier effect.
It is illogical, a breach of faith, and a denial of the use by local authorities of their own funds, to use capital expenditure in this way and at the same time to cut the allocation of money from central Government and the housing investment programme. The Minister gave the House some figures yesterday. I have calculations of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In real terms, we are getting about 30 per cent. of the capital expenditure of the local authority housing programme that we were getting in 1979–80. For the first time in over a century, we have a Government who disown their general housing obligations.
I found some election material for battles between Disraeli and Gladstone. At one election in the 1870s both campaigned about sanitary housing. They recognised that they had an obligation to attend to general housing needs. Since then, almost all Governments have recognised that responsibility. They have not always discharged that obligation but they recognised it. Harold Macmillan recognised it; Wheatley and Nye Bevan recognised it. Last year the Government pretended that they recognised that obligation when they said in a Public Expenditure White Paper that they had three policy objectives:
to increase the level of home ownership; to encourage the repair and improvement of existing stock; and to concentrate public resources within the housing programme on capital provision for those in greatest housing need.
This year the Government's main aim in housing policy is to increase home ownership so that more families can achieve their ambition of owning their own home. Good luck to them, but nothing is being done about other housing responsibilities.
Cuts in improvement grants and in the general funds available for capital spending have been made and the Government say that they intend to carry out a survey of local authority needs. We do not need a survey because plenty of material has already been provided by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have three well documented reports containing the figures. Paragraph 7.10 of the document "Defects in Housing: Part I: 'Non-traditional' dwellings of the 1940s and 1950s" published in July 1983 states:
We estimate that the average cost of works to non-traditional dwellings, for both repair, or in severe cases demolition and replacement, will be £10,000 per unit. This results in a likely total cost £5,000 million.
A second report was produced in March 1984 called "Industrialised and system built dwellings of the 1960s and 1970s" which said in paragraph 7.15:
The cost of dealing with the defects problem is obviously difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, judging from the regularity of which certain items appear for different types and systems, it seems that the average unit cost will be around £5,000 … the total cost could therefore be up to £5,000 million.
In March 1985 the AMA produced another report. It produces them every year so the Government do not have to digest too much at a time. That report was about the repair and modernisation of traditional-built dwellings. In that, the association says that the total cost for England —not for Great Britain—is £6,000 million.
The figures may seem large but they illustrate how people have to live with damp, water dripping through the roof, far too expensive heating systems and cockroaches breeding. When the Government impose a moratorium on spending they cannot freeze the condition of the housing


stock. A house is not like a crashed car that one can put in the garage until one has enough money to repair it. Houses rot, the cockroaches breed and the condition of the properties becomes worse. They become more damp. Not only the houses but the society which occupies them disintegrates.
The Select Committee says that no one seems to know what is being done. It is nearer the truth to say that everyone knows that almost nothing is being done to the publicly owned housing fabric.
It is not that the Government are ignorant of the problem. Ministers visit housing estates and talk to local authority representatives. As the Minister for Housing and Construction is so fond of saying, the Opposition do not have a monopoly of compassion. We do not say that the Government do not care, but that they have the means to tackle the problem. The greatest indictment of them is that while having the ability to solve the problem they refuse to budge because of their monetary obsession.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I begin by adding to the visible embarrassment felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) by complimenting him on his report and excellent speech. The Government welcome the debate which he initiated because it gives us the opportunity to review in detail my Department's expenditure. As the details of administration become more complex, it becomes harder for hon. Members and Ministers to scrutinise in depth all the figures in the Estimates. It is of enormous value when a Select Committee with its special knowledge and expert advice takes on the task of preliminary scrutiny and examination. As my hon. Friend said, the work is not sensational, but it is important because the sums involved are substantial and are spent in sensitive areas.
I propose to concentrate on the Select Committee's recommendations. I am aware that I might not reply to all the points. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for example, fired a metaphorical 12-bore shotgun at my Department from a considerable range and the scatter was broad. I shall have to answer many of his questions by letter. Some of the questions, although aimed at my Department, hit other Departments and it is for them to reply. I shall say a word later about the macro economic issues which he raised in a reflective passage of his speech.
I shall deal briefly with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said in his closing remarks. Last year a record sum of £1 billion was spent on renovating public sector housing stock in addition to the £1 billion from the revenue account which was spent on repair and maintenance. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that. The main difference between the two parties is that the Opposition see a predominantly public sector solution to the acknowledged difficulties, whereas Conservatives are anxious to harness private sector resources. We think that by that means we can make faster progress in tackling the problems.
Ministers and others have to tread carefully on the subject of dogs. I share the Select Committee's anxiety that a solution should be found quickly to the current absurdity of dog licensing. As the Committee and my hon. Friend said, we have consulted widely about the alternatives to the present system. The response has been wide and varied. Some argue that it would be best to

abolish the dog licence. Many others are worried about the nuisance caused by dogs and believe that a higher licence fee would encourage more responsible dog ownership and finance measures to deal with the problems caused by the irresponsible.
Some who favour the retention of the licence fee want the fee to be determined nationally—the view expressed by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Others agree with the view in the consultation paper that there should be some local discretion.
The Government have been considering the response to the consultation paper. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible. We shall take on board comments made in today's debate. I know that hon. Members think that we are taking too long to make a decision, but the issue is both complex and emotive. It is easier to criticise the present arrangements than to establish a new system. The Select Committee did not come down in favour of any of the options under consideration.
We are anxious to find a sensible and lasting solution, but I emphasise that any option, apart from the straightforward increase in the fee, needs primary legislation before it can be implemented. We are aware of the Select Committee's anxiety that expenditure which they rightfully describe as wasteful should end.
A question has been tabled to the Home Secretary about details of a pilot scheme testing new byelaws to reduce the nuisance of dog fouling. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering a pilot project to test the effectiveness of byelaws requiring people to clear up excrement deposited by their dogs in certain public places. Appropriately, the experiment will begin in the London borough of Barking.
I leave dogs for animals in general, the London zoo and the question of grants to voluntary bodies. My Department agrees with the view of the Committee that it is bad practice that payments should be undertaken without specific statutory authority, except when a sudden need arises and in respect of which legislation will shortly be introduced or when the requirement is short-lived.
For the Zoological Society of London, the Government fully accept that statutory cover should be provided for the short and long-term financial assistance which, it has recently been agreed, will be offered to the society. An early opportunity will be taken to introduce legislation seeking parliamentary approval to authorise this, but the House will be aware of the pressures on time, particularly those of us who have been up late for two nights on the Finance Bill. Although I hope that some progress will have been possible by the time that the Select Committee considers the Estimates for 1986–87, I can give no guarantee of that.
As for the Department's grant-giving to voluntary bodies, the Committee recognises that the range of departmental responsibilities to which grants relate poses a difficulty in drafting suitable legislation, but we are now confident that most, if not all, of the Department of the Environment grant-giving could be covered by a widely drawn power and, again, a legislative opportunity is awaited.
With regard to payments to international bodies, my Department is discussing with the Treasury what action is needed to give cover to this expenditure and how it might best be obtained. I note the warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green about what might happen if the position continues to be unresolved.
A number of issues were raised about housing. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) asked me to give figures for expenditure on the scheme for home ownership for tenants of charitable housing associations. The estimate of the cost in 1984–85, the first year of the operation of the scheme, was £10 million and the outturn was £3·45 million. When we announced the corporation's ADP on 21 January, the Minister for Housing and Construction gave the estimate of the likely cost in 1985–86 as £17 million. The scheme is now going well and we are currently considering whether any more resources can be carried forward from last year's underspend. We have given no figure yet for last year.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked when a decision would be made on allocations in respect of the Housing Defects Act. Additional allocations to authorities which have particular difficulties in meeting their obligations will be made shortly under the Act.
I was asked a number of questions about home improvement grants. The Committee attaches consider-able importance to ensuring that resources for the improvement and repair of the nation's housing stock should be appropriately distributed between the public and private sectors. We accept that it is important for available resources to be directed where they are most needed. This involves making some decision about distribution between the two sectors.
It is up to local authorities to divide the resources that are available to them and, with their statutory responsibility for housing in their areas and the knowledge of local circumstances, I believe that they are best placed to decide on local needs and priorities. That is why we allocate the capital resources as a single block to each authority, which they can then allocate as they think fit. In allocating resources between authorities, we consider, among other things, the condition of the housing stock in the public and private sectors.
We already have a good deal of information from the English house condition survey, which is scheduled to be repeated in 1986, and I can confirm that information will be available on a comparable basis to the proceeding survey. As the hon. Member for Norwood said, we are in the process of supplementing—by means of a special inquiry into the repair and improvement needs of the housing stock in local authority ownership — our information on this subject. We expect the first results from that inquiry to be available at the end of the month.
We shall then have a more up-to-date view of the national need for improvement and repair in the two sectors. However, while that may inform our decision on the allocation of resources between authorities, the individual authorities will continue to be best placed to decide on distribution at a local level.
In our allocation procedures, we shall take into account the different roles of local authorities in the two sectors. For their housing, authorities have the same responsibility as any landlord to make sure that the property is kept in good repair and that necessary improvements are carried out.
In the private sector, the primary responsibility rests with owners. They clearly recognise that, as the great majority of the more than £9 billion a year spent on home improvements is already financed largely by savings or by

borrowing from the financial institutions. An important effect of the 1982 Budget initiative was that householders were made even more aware of the benefits of improving and repairing their homes and securing the value of their property.
The private sector organisations have also realised that there is much that they can do to encourage and assist owners to carry out repair work. For example, the National Home Improvement Council has set up neighbourhood revitalisation services in several areas, and the Anchor Housing Trust's "Staying Put" schemes are especially geared to helping elderly people to maintain and retain their homes. We want to encourage the private sector to help itself in that sort of way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr Chapman) reminded the House of the growth in expenditure on home improvement grants — up from £200 million in 1981–82 to £900 million in 1983–84 and about £730 million in 1984–85. More than 250,000 grants were paid in 1983–84 and about 200,000 last year. There has been a shift in priorities, both for local authorities and individual home owners, who are giving greater priority to maintaining the housing stock.
I am glad that the Committee recognises that it is not easy for local authorities concerned to find suitable gipsy sites. As the Committee rightly says, proposals to establish a site arouse considerable opposition from local residents. There has been a gradual increase in site provision since the grant aid was introduced in 1979–80, and a number of studies have been carried out within the Department to consider whether any other steps may be taken to speed site provision.
These have enabled us to produce booklets on the management of gipsy sites and on the question of defining a gipsy. Copies have been made available to the House when published. We are also preparing a leaflet about private sites. However, we shall certainly take another look at the problem on the lines that the Committee recommends
It has been said that authorities have shirked their duty in that respect. There is a remedy in the courts and some local authorities have been taken to court by representatives of gipsies who believe that the Act should be upheld. The duty to provide sites is mandatory, not discretionary. The record shows that we are prepared to take account of unfair trading on conscientious authorities in the discussions that we have with individual authorities about the designation of their areas.
The Committee considered the difficulties people living in rented accommodation have in moving from one part of the country to another. The Government provide assistance to those who need to move, through the national mobilty and tenants exchange schemes. These two schemes are shortly to be brought together, providing opportunities for increased rationalisation and effectiveness.
Under the national mobility scheme, local authorities make available I per cent. of their annual lettings for people moving into the area from outside the county, plus one more letting for each of their nominees who is housed elsewhere. The Select Committee commented that the 1 per cent. of lettings available was unduly low and thought that consideration should be given to raising the figure to 2 per cent. or more as a contribution to helping those moving for employment.
I share the Committee's concern about the difficulties that people have in obtaining housing when they move for work. Indeed, last year I asked the national mobility steering committee to consider increasing the 1 per cent. proportion, but the local authority associations opposed the proposal, and it was rejected. The steering committee agreed, however, to reconsider the proposal in a year's time, and I hope that it will take note of the Select Committee's views.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked what our proposals were. I believe that it would make sense for the national mobility office to assume responsibility both for the Greater London mobility scheme and for the seaside and country homes scheme. As he will be aware, a committee is looking into that. When that committee has reported and a decision has been taken, we shall be better placed to take decisions about financial responsibility for the scheme.
My Department is informally exploring further ways of encouraging local authorities to meet the present 1 per cent. target, but any move to make the scheme statutory would be stongly resisted by the local authorities, and I fear that it would disrupt the present smooth running of the scheme, which operates by consensus and co-operation.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On the subject of mobility, it is all very well for the Minister to point out the difficulties involved in moving to a statutory scheme, but so long as large numbers of authorities, particularly in areas such as Scotland, fail to participate, it cannot help but lack effectiveness. Has he any proposals to apply a little more persuasion on those authorities?

Sir George Young: I know that the Chairman of the Committee this year is devoting considerable time persuading the relatively small numbers of local authorities which have not joined to join. We are talking of a handful in England and relatively few in Scotland. We hope to make progress by persuasion and consent.
A number of comments have been made about the urban programme and about the desirability of targeting the programme. The Government's intention is to concentrate the help provided by the traditional urban programme on the areas with the greatest need. Included will be some areas that are not designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, but the programme should not be seen as a long shot for grant aid by every undesignated district. I accept that as we concentrate resources more effectively we should avoid abortive work by discouraging from bidding areas that are unlikely to be successful. Part of the problem is that the programme operates through a circular which is sent to all authorities. This becomes a less appropriate way in which to operate as the number of authorities receiving approval falls. It may be that we should offer invitations explicitly to priority areas rather than issuing a circular to every authority. We shall be announcing proposals for consultation with local authorities in the last couple of weeks.
The designation of Newham has been referred to on several occasions. The previous Labour Government did not designate it, so the crime, if there is one, has been committed equally by both the Labour Government and the present Government. Newham has within its boundaries the London Docklands development corpora-tion, which is injecting substantial sums of public money into the infrastructure. That is an advantage that other London boroughs do not have.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister knows that only 6 per cent. of Newham's population live in the docklands area. There is a distortion of the local economy that is of no great assistance to the remaining 94 per cent. of the population, which badly needs the resources that partnership status would provide.

Sir George Young: The LDDC is providing jobs, which I hope are of interest to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is providing housing as well. About 40 per cent. of the houses that the corporation builds go to those who live in the area. The fact that very few live in the LDDC area at present is irrelevant. Very few people live there because the area comprises mostly docks. The one thing that I can say about the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is that for once he resisted the temptation to have a dig at the LDDC. I regard the fact that he did not mention it this evening as a cause for hope.
The Select Committee commented on the international garden festival. It rightly observes in its report that the financial outturn did not meet expectations. I accept that conclusion and I can assure the House that we have already begun our own assessment of the project. When our inquiries are complete, we shall report the findings to the Committee. It is important that the lessons are properly documented to provide guidance for similar future projects.
I think that everyone will agree that the festival brought new life and newfound confidence to Merseyside. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for his remarks about the festival. The development corporation is worthy of the highest praise for the way in which it mounted the project. When I visited the festival last summer I found it difficult to believe that such a high quality environment had been created in such a short time from dereliction. I shall report to the Select Committee in due course on the lessons to be learned.
What did we get for the money which was expended on the festival? Liverpool now has an area of landscaped parkland of which it can be truly proud. It has a festival hall that can be converted to leisure and sports use as well as a riverside walkway. There are landscaped sites that are ready for high quality residential and industrial development. A number of jobs were created during the two and a half years of construction. Expenditure by visitors to the festival amounted to about £9 million, which benefited local hotels and guest houses.
Now that the festival has ended, I hope that the corporation will succeed in persuading the private sector to take on and develop the site. Whatever happens, Merseyside will have had the benefit of hosting a unique event and of gaining the many assets and benefits which came from it.
The administration costs of the London Docklands Development Corporation have been referred to during the debate. This issue must be placed in the context of the task that is faced by the corporation. Anyone who has visited the docklands recently, will, I am sure, have been impressed by the progress that has been made, especially on the Isle of Dogs. The area has been transformed. Work on the structures for the railway is everywhere evident.
The first phase of the distinctive Heron Quays office development has been completed. Construction of the Daily Telegraph's new printing works is well advanced


and many other formerly derelict sites are now alive with construction work. I congratulate Christopher Benson and his team on the corporation's excellent record.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: No. I must make progress in fairness to those who wish to participate in the next debate.
At the same time, I share the Committee's view that we must keep a close watch on the LDDC's administration costs. The corporation, in conjunction with my Department, has started work on a review of its administration costs. The work started before the Committee's report was published.
We must take into account the fact that the LDDC must have regard for about 40,000 local people, whereas very few people live in the Merseyside docklands area. The LDDC has provided a marketing effort and the business support and advice necessary to attract more than £820 million in private investment to the docklands, whereas the MDC is only just beginning to gear up its activity. A substantial part of the corporation's broad definition of administrative costs goes to areas which other bodies examined by the Select Committee do not include as administration. This covers business development and support services, site marketing, community sport and estate management.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) addressed himself to the Property Services Agency and fraud and corruption. I assured the House last year that Ministers were determined to enforce the highest possible standards, and that remains true. The PSA has given top priority to implementing the Wardell-Touche Ross recommendations and those on other maintenance matters that have been raised by the National Audit Office in reporting to the PAC. The PAC took evidence earlier this year on progress and detailed in the evidence, which has been published, is the action that we have already taken.
As for the maintenance of the Government's estate, I share the Committee's concern about the backlog and the need to ensure that the funds that are available are used as economically and effectively as possible.
I accept both of the recommendations which the Committee has made on increased delegation and standards. We must ensure that common standards are applied throughout the area for which the PSA retains responsibility for maintenance. We have introduced a uniform classification of maintenance priorities and have started a programme of district management reviews, which will consider all the activities of the district works office. These measures will ensure that consistent standards are being applied.
I accept in principle the recommendation that we should increase the amount of delegation to Departments, though the way and extent to which this will be done needs to be

considered carefully. In the current review of our relationships with other Departments we are trying to find a clearer definition of roles. The starting point is that the PSA has a clear task to fulfil as central manager of the civil estate. That means retaining responsibility for the structural maintenance of the properties on the estate. These are valuable public assets, and the PSA has the staff with the necessary technical expertise to know what needs to be done and how to specify and control the contracts so as to secure the best value for money.
We recognise that there is a good deal of sense in not merely making local managers and Departments aware of costs, as the property repayments system does, but giving them an appropriate share in the decisions that have to be taken between conflicting priorities. We hope that some of the experiments that have started on internal decoration will show that it is sensible to delegate this task to Departments where they do not affect the structure of the property or require technical expertise. Whether increased delegation will of itself produce better maintenance standards is another matter, because Departments are subject to the same constraints as the PSA. However, it will make for a more logical division of labour.
We shall pursue the issue of purchase of freeholds with the Treasury in the light of what the Committee has said.
The Committee dealt with the property repayments system at some length. As the report states, the system has been operating for two years. It is, however, such a major change in the way that Government accommodation is handled that it is still a comparatively new system and subject to review and development. It has been helpful to have the Committee's ideas during the formative stage of the process. It involves substantial operating costs, but the Government expect these to be more than offset by extra value for money.
The first area to which we should look for results is in the figures for the areas occupied. These have been reducing in recent years as staff numbers have been cut. The PSA has been seeking to rationalise the estate to reduce holdings to a minimum. However, some broad issues are raised about the role of the PSA by the Committee and it is not quite clear whether introducing commercial accounts would be in the interests of the PSA as it has been set up. We accept the Committee's recommendation that this matter should be considered and that the Treasury should be involved, but the Committee should not expect a quick solution to what I fear may be a rather difficult set of problems.
I shall deal by correspondence with the other issues that have been raised. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their comments on my Department's expenditure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The Questions necessary to dispose of the first group of motions stand over to half-past eleven or at the conclusion of the debate on the final Estimate, whichever is the earlier, under the Order of the House of 4 July.

Health and Personal Social Services

Class XI, Vote 1

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £5,168,144,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on the provision of services under the national health service in England, on other health services including a grant in aid and on certain other services including research and services for the disabled. — [Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Mrs. Renée Short: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the report of the Social Services Committee on the care of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, as, I am sure, are other members of the Select Committee. I am disappointed that, although the report was presented four and half months ago, we have not yet had a ministerial response. I hope that that gap will be filled. The Committee was well served by its expert advisers. I should like to thank David Plank, John Wing and Joy Young for all their work, help, advice and enthusiasm. The Committee is most grateful to them.
The Select Committee is now engaged on the social security reviews. We do not yet know about the effects of the reviews on the mentally disabled. Paragraph 147 of the report states that the analysis should show
the benefit entitlements of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people.
I hope that the Minister for Health will fill that gap.
The Committee paid tribute to the great care given by doctors, nurses and other doing a multiplicity of jobs in the huge hospitals, often in isolated positions, during the last century. We saw huge hospitals in the United States with 20,000 patients. It is possible to move ahead too quickly. It is easy to move patients to cheaper, less well-motivated and less well-staffed places. If community care is to work, there must be locally based facilities which are well staffed by redeploying thousands of skilled, partly skilled and unskilled staff, as well as money. Unless that happens, community care will fail. If it is to work, there must he locally based psychiatric care, workshops and a rejigging of the social security system and taxation to encourage people if they find work. The clear lesson to be learned from our American visit is that we cannot close down one set of facilities, however imperfect, until the alternatives are firmly established.
It is fairly easy to shift patients from a state hospital to a less well-motivated and well-staffed "community facility", whatever it is. Large mental institutions can then he closed, but that does not help the patients. As the committee's report states:
Any fool can close a hospital but it depends how you do it." That statement has been widely reported in the press.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In case the hon. Lady gives a misleading impression, will she give one example of where we have closed a large mental hospital without providing alternative facilities? I think the hon. Lady will agree that there is no such example in this country, although there may be examples in the United States or Italy, to which the Committee travelled.

Mrs. Short: If the Minister has the patience to bear with me, I hope to give some examples later.
Our present provision for mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients is underfunded and understaffed. If we are to transfer patients to the community, local authority expenditure will have to increase. That is the point that we are trying to put forward in this debate. Expenditure on housing, education and transport must increase. Unless we do so, an even greater burden will be imposed on the voluntary services. The only money that many patients will have will be their social security entitlements.
We must understand that many mentally ill and mentally handicapped people are already being cared for in the community in their own homes, or, if not, they are being cared for in group homes, hostels and lodgings. Better facilities will be needed for them. The Committee heard of many parents who were coping with their mentally handicapped children. These parents criticised the present inadequate provision. The careing professions made known their great concern during every visit that the Committee made.
There are, of course, day centres, group homes and sheltered workshops run by immensely dedicated people, but there is also great concern. We must bear in mind that mental illness hospitals scheduled for closure some years ago still have patients in them, some of whom are very old and frail. Some of those hospitals contain 1,000 or more patients. There is a danger that the Government are putting pressure on hospital authorities to close mental illness hospitals within certain time limits. This makes it difficult for psychologists, nurses and community mental health nurses to think about what should be provided for their patients.
The Committee's report states that the community psychiatric nurse is a key pail of the new mental illness service. The director of the Health Advisory Service calls the CPN
probably the most important single professional in the process of moving care of mental illness into the community".
I am glad that there are now more CPNs in primary health care teams. During the Committee's visit to Blackburn and Tiverton we heard of general practitioners' increased confidence in referring patients to CPNs and of the confidence of CPNs able to work relatively independently. That is a very good development.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists favours that, but is anxious that it should be achieved by expanding the service rather than by redeploying those nurses who are already caring for more disabled psychiatric patients in the community. In 1977, the Trethowan report on the role of clinical psychologists recommended the employment of a minimum of 1,100. There are now 1,300, but they are unevenly spread throughout the community. There are half as many proportionately in Trent, Oxford and Wessex as in the north-western region. Those people should be training the therapists, nurses, care officers and assistants. Indeed, they should be training the relatives, giving them help and guidance when careing for their relations in their homes. In some areas the clinical psychologists are doing that, as Committee members saw on some of their vistis. I hope that the Committee will review the Trethowan report and encourage the leadership and potential of clinical psychologists.
The Committee has drawn attention to the fact that general practitioners are not always willing or able to care for mentally disabled patients. The Royal College of General Practitioners agreed that general practitioner


training was inadequate for the job which the doctors were expected to do in caring for mentally disabled people in the community. I understand that the Royal College of Psychiatrists would be happy to help with general practitioner training. If the Minister for Health is willing to provide encouragement, this link between the two branches of the profession could be developed, and that would be helpful.
The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists told the Committee:
during the period since the 1950s, there has been a very radical change in the way in which psychiatrists have come outside the mental hospitals and have become more heavily involved with the community in a variety of ways"—
notably with the concept of treatment and rehabilitation close to the patient's own home.
Not enough time is being given to the psychiatrists to plan acceptable alternatives. Public attitudes in the community must be considered. We are saying that the Minister for Health cannot turn people out of hospital before adequate community services have been provided for them. On discharge too many patients rely on seedy bed-and-breakfast lodgings, doss houses, park benches or even prison. The Select Committee is about to start an investigation into prison medical services, and I suppose that we shall come up against this problem again during that inquiry. Many private homes are springing up. There is no proper inspection, many charge large fees and no follow-up is provided by hospitals or social services. That is a serious gap in the present system of transfer from hospital care into the community.
It is possible to provide good care in ordinary domestic surroundings with sufficient resources and one-to-one staffing as the Committee saw in Nebraska as well as in Cardiff and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The best form of accommodation is ordinary housing with staff with the necessary expertise providing for small groups of mentally ill people in the community. If the mentally ill are to be housed in the community, there must be a change of heart by their neighbours. We learned how to tackle that problem in Cardiff. It is important to talk to the neighbours about the project before the patients arrive.
Sheltered village-type communities can also provide an excellent environment for certain mentally ill patients. We visited a splendid Rudolf Steiner community overlooking the sea near Belfast where 60 mentally handicapped children and 30 mentally handicapped adults are cared for in a self-supporting community. They performed various interesting activities and ran a productive farm, breeding cattle and growing crops.
How will the Government carry out such a massive and diverse exercise in their present mood of cutting and skimping on the social services? The method of financing a successful programme of community care is crucial. The Minister for Health seemed confident when he told the House that the Government had sufficient financial mechanisms to encourage the discharge of long-stay patients and to establish matching services in the community, but the Select Committee for Social Services, health authorities, local authorities, voluntary organisa-tions, parents and clients do not share the Minister's optimism.
Regional strategic plans for the next 10 years are now appearing. Many of the regional plans for mental illness

and mental handicap are sound. They are full of the right sentiments. The real action, however, takes place in the districts. There are many vague proposals for National Health Service community mental handicap units and mental health centres, but there is little evidence that the districts have any clear notion of how the new long-stay chronically mentally ill will be cared for. Some patients will remain in the big old mental institutions which look as though they are to be closed, but which will close only in the sense that the Italians close their hospitals by changing their names.
Those Victorian hospitals will lose many of their staff, but they will retain a core of patients. Mapperley hospital in the Minister's area has 350 beds and is supposed to close by 1991. There will be a large 150-plus bed district psychiatric centre on that site. Middlewood hospital in Sheffield has 775 beds and is to close, but a new 120-bed unit is proposed on the edge of the existing site. The fear is that those patients will be conveniently forgotten. People will think that St. John's, Mapperley, Middlewood and Powick have been closed and attention will be concentrated on the more interesting community services.
The Select Committee recommended that at least the same proportion of resources should continue to be devoted to the most severely mentally disabled in the future. It also discussed the new long-stay provisions—the asylum function—in hostels or refuges rather than in new units built in the grounds of the old hospitals. It is essential that we do not neglect the chronically mentally disturbed.
Paragraphs 161 to 167 of the Select Committee report give the numbers of mentally disabled people in prisons or who are homeless or living in shelters. The Committee recommended a departmental inquiry into the care of homeless mentally ill people. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is to take place. Over the past few months we have been monitoring the Government's policy on resettlement units and we intend to examine Ministers on that in the autumn, but perhaps the Minister will tell us today what consultation has taken place on replacing the local units and how far Camberwell will have been replaced when it closes its doors in September. In the autumn we shall also be examining the prison medical service. The British Medical Association has warned us that prisons could become the "sump" for caring for the mentally disabled.
With regard to mental handicap, it is disturbing to see the extent to which some of the old hospitals are being retained to an undesirable extent and that new institutions are being created. Barnsley is building a new mini-mental handicap hospital. Oxfordshire and Berkshire authorities are planning to build more than 12 large new units, generally of 25 beds, but including a 50-bed unit in Reading. The Government are not closing the large hospitals. The Select Committee went into this question in detail in paragraphs 55 to 58 of the report and concluded that new units on this scale were to be deprecated. Ministers must use the accountability review process to discover why authorities are still building so-called "Wessex units", which were a great advance in their day, when Wessex is moving rapidly towards the use of ordinary houses for six or seven people at a time.
Some plans show proposals for the transfer of patients from one institution to another. This is sometimes called relocation. In America it is called "transinstitutionalisation"—a marvellous word for Scrabble players, but a


barely acceptable practice, as paragraphs 153 to 156 of the report observe. We warned that traffic of dependent people between institutions was in danger of developing. We believe that to be undesirable. We saw examples of this when we visited Powick outside Worcester. As it is European Music Year, I remind hon. Members that Powick was the hospital where Elgar had his first job as a music master. Powick was supposed to have closed, but we have been to see it and have seen the patients there. There are approximately 100 patients left at Powick. They will be dumped elsewhere to enable the authority to make millions of pounds from the sale of that beautiful site overlooking the Malvern hills for private development or whatever.
Trent is planning to move 100 Saxondale patients to the site of Ransom mental handicap hospital. Northampton is planning to move 100 St. Crispin's patients to Princess Marina mental handicap hospital and 45 patients from St. John's Aylesbury to Manor House mental handicap hospital. It would be possible on this basis to close all long-stay hospitals, but they are not really being closed —the patients are simply being juggled around.
The nub of the problem is resources. The Select Committee's first and broadest conclusion is that at present mental disability services are underfinanced and understaffed. It is impossible to achieve the level of community care that everyone wants without some increase in resources. The Select Committee is not just asking for more money. If there were no community care policies, we could not continue for much longer with the kind of hospital service that we have. The Victorian asylum type of hospital is now inadequate. The Select Committee saw some very grim conditions, as I have described to the House. The press is understandably more interested in exposing the shortcomings of community care —the lodging house problem. We should not forget the alternative. The Select Committee report states in paragraph 21:
The relative neglect in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals has only been tolerable (if barely so) because of the promise of a major shift in the locus of care.
The particular problem to which I want to draw attention in the context of an Estimates debate is the difficulty of transferring resources from one area of public expenditure to another, from one ministerial Department to another. We spend over £2 billion on health and personal social services, a further considerable sum on social security payments for mentally disabled people, and there is further expenditure by education and housing departments. Money does not flow as easily between those structures as it does between patients.
The Committee expects to see an eventual reduction in NHS expenditure and an increase in local authority expenditure, as we describe in paragraph 22, flowing primarily from our recommendation that while the National Health Service should not be constrained in the short term from providing community residential services for mentally handicapped people, in the long term all social care—that is, non-clinical care—mental handicap services should be financed and administered by local authorities. That is already happening in some districts, but not in all. It is a question of the transfer of resources.
The Committee looked at the Government's care in the community initiatives, and they are very welcome. We look forward to their evaluation by the personal social services research unit in Kent, so long as that unit

concentrates on what happens to patients and not just on the book-keeping exercise, because it is what happens to patients that is important. The Committee concluded that they did not at present offer a persuasive solution to the permanent transfer of resources. The very fact that the DHSS is funding them with bridging money means that they cannot easily be repeated. What is more, because they quite properly concentrate an getting specific people out of hospital, there is no certainty as to who will fund the services once those people no longer need them. Also, the services concentrate on getting people out of hospital rather than on the maintenance of the majority of mentally disabled people who are already in the community anyway. We must not overlook that.
The Committee made several recommendations in that connection and in paragraph 68 we recommend
that Ministers create means of bringing about the necessary permanent transfer of resources to local authorities so that by the end of the century they will be in a position to take over prime responsibility for non-medical services for mentally handicapped people.
That is a clear recommendation.
We also make several recommendations which are designed to improve joint planning between health and local authorities and to toughen up regional and departmental oversight. We think that the recently published strategic plans are rather thin on the nitty-gritty of joint planning. Perhaps the Minister will say what he intends to do about that.
We call for a central bridging fund to enable resources to be released to build up a new style of mental illness and mental handicap service before the hospitals are fully closed, with the resultant savings. In paragraphs 111 to 116 we explain why we think that is necessary, as do most experts. Much of the per capita cost of a patient is tied up in fixed costs and ancillary staff, so that the discharge of a few patients does not itself produce any savings, because the staff who are already there have to remain to look after the patients who are left behind.
Mrs. Major of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, who gave us some very good evidence, put the matter well when she said:
Patients should not be removed until the alternative facilities actually exist in the community. It seems to me that it is like asking a passenger to jump off an elderly ship into the stormy sea with the assurance that the lifeboat will be along in a few months' time.
By then, of course, there will not be any patients to pick up.
Some regions have apparently managed to close long-stay hospitals, or at least to run them down. We say in paragraph 115:
the fact of discharge, of bed reduction does not reveal anything of the quality of community services provided. Some authorities have followed a path of either racing ahead and damning the consequences or of simply dismantling their existing services and rebuilding them in local wards still under NHS control.
Somewhere new buildings are to be put up to do precisely that.
Some regions do not have anything like sufficient funds for such reserves. We gave as an example south-west Thames and the huge Epsom cluster. The same is likely to be true of north-west Thames and the Hertfordshire hospitals. The Committee has just received a very useful and full response from west Lambeth health authority. That is a district authority which is a RAWP-losing district within a RAWP-losing region. Its budget is being severely cut over 10 years. It is obliged to race ahead with the


closure of Tooting Bec. We refer to that in paragraph 218 of our report. The local authority is rate-capped, penalised and generally restricted.
The Committee visited Friern hospital in the Prime Minster's constituency. It serves districts which are also RAWP losers, and boroughs in north-east London which have no funds to spare. No doubt some authorities can manage more easily. The Committee concluded, in paragraph 116:
There are excuses as well as reasons for the lack of action.
But for many some sort of centrally provided short-term funding is essential to bridge the gap. The Minister and the Government have to find some ways of getting over that problem.
Between 1979 and 1984 a financial gain of over £101 million has been made by the sale of hospital land. Much of that may well have been land attached to mental illness or mental handicap hospitals. What does the Minister intend to do with that money? What has happened to it so far? I know that the figure is correct, because the Minister gave it to me in reply to a parliamentary question.
I see from today's evening press that we have won over the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the view expressed from the Opposition Benches that defence expenditure should be reduced, and a figure of £500 million is being suggested. Perhaps the Minister will get his eye on some of that money.
The message from the Select Committee is that resources must be found if the Government's declared policy is to succeed. It cannot be done otherwise. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the good advice that we give him.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: May I add my thanks and tribute to the Select Committee's advisers and say what a pleasure it was to serve as a member of the Committee, under the urbane leadership of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). As I have experience of only one Select Committee, I have nothing with which to compare it, but if the experience of members of the Social Services Committee is anything to go by, I suspect that the Select Committee is a useful and helpful part of our procedures and our democracy in this Parliament.
The report of the Select Committee is unanimous. There was an intense effort to ensure that what we reported was supported by all members of the Committee. The membership of the Committee covers a wide spectrum not only of politics but of personalities. It ranges from the quiet, genteel members to the not so quiet and genteel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which are you?"] I think that I join hands with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
It would be discourteous to other hon. Members to concentrate on more than a few aspects of the subject in the time that is available, so I want to emphasise one or two of the points that appear to me to be significant in the various visits that we made and evidence that we took.
Throughout our work, I was interested to find that what one area told us was impossible was being done in other areas. On many occasions we were told that it was impossible to move certain patients out of an institution, but the next day one found that it was being done at some

other place. There is a terrible danger that not only the patients in institutions but the staff become used to what they have and, without malevolence, cannot see beyond that. Those who are charged with the political responsibility for policy-making in the Health Service and the social services, as well as in the House, must grapple with the problem of what level of paternalism should be allowed.
The type of paternalism that seems to be beneficial is when experts say that they know what is best for their elderly mentally handicapped patients, and that is to show them what it is like outside the institution. Unless that is done, patients will be unable to decide what they want; they will always decide that they want what they already have. That sort of paternalism can be valuable. The worrying side of paternalism is when patients are guarded because, it is said, it is too frightening for them to leave the institution. Again, that is done not out of malevolence but from a desire to care for those who are fragile and vulnerable.
In our inquiries, the matter of philosophy of risk was very striking. I have come to realise more and more that the risk that we allow, not only to the patients, but to those whom they might harm, is a political decision. Too often, we shelter behind the experts charged with the care of those people. If something goes wrong, we turn our back and ask, "Why did the social services allow this to happen? Why did the health authority not do more?" We must realise that if we are to encourage the flow into the community of those who have disorders, are vulnerable mentally, or perhaps have behavioural problems which may influence others, there is a risk attached.
We must grapple with the problem of risk. I was impressed by the director of a mental health institute in America, who said that he could sedate the patients for 12 months of the year and remove all risk. However, he also said that we would lose the benefit to the community of many of the patients, who are splendid members of society for nine months of the year and have much to contribute, but who are disturbed for perhaps three months. He said that it was our choice and that we could decide.
At the lowest level it applies if we wish people to live in as normal conditions as possible. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said earlier, the best option is an ordinary house in an ordinary street. But fire officers insist that if there is a group of people living communally, the fire regulations require that extras such as fire doors and fire escapes must be added to the house. The property ceases to be an ordinary house in an ordinary street. That is a vivid aspect of the problems of normality and risk. We must be shrewd and decide whether to put up with the risk and not shelter behind authorities when something goes wrong, because somewhere at some time something is sure to go wrong.
Although some would say that we were brave or perhaps foolhardy, we touched on the delicate matter of sexuality. We tend to shy away from the problem of the rights of those who cannot guard their emotions and vulnerability in the same way as others. We asked those with legal minds to consider carefully the responsibility of those who care for such people and to consider the rights regarding contraception and other matters relating to sexuality.
There is a danger in thinking that if only we get all the practical steps right, people will enter the community without problems. The longer I remain in politics, the


more I become convinced that we cannot change people's hearts and minds simply by changing policies. The context in which we develop policies is just as important as the pragmatic decisions. Although we should discuss the practical points to which the hon. Lady drew attention and which the report details at great length and, I hope, powerfully, it is just as important for us to argue with our constituents and our communities about the need to accept people whose behaviour may seem to be abnormal and who may appear to pose an extra burden on the community. Their behaviour should be regarded within the very broad spectrum of behaviour and personality. Without that understanding or acceptance, policies are empty and might, in some respects, be provocative.
It is important to recognise that the stress may be greatest in our urban communities, where many such people are sent to live because of the tremendous care that can be offered by urban organisations. Those who are struggling to survive on old estates or with unemployment— or whatever social conditions impact greatly upon them—may believe, alas, that they could do without the extra burden of having people in the community to whom they must give more attention. It behoves us all to recognise that the context of the community is desperately important if the good policies outlined in the report are to succeed.
Although the hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the need for more resources, I would not wish the House to believe that that is the only solution. We do not always consider the links between the voluntary sector and the different aspects of the Health Service, social services and the social security system. The total resources that can be provided by all those organisations may mean much less to an individual than institutional care. We cannot say that one solution—perhaps that of social security income support—is better than drawing the services together. It would be unwise to believe that the report asks only for vastly increased resources. We need a host of other services, too.
I should emphasise to the Minister that the bridging facilities between institutional care and the community are expensive. We cannot make large savings by closing an institution and disposing of the buildings and land until it is entirely closed. There is a serious problem in providing a bridge between what we have now and what we want. I hope that the Minister will take on board the crucial point that each area may need funds to provide such bridging facilities.
An adviser to the Committee drew to its attention an interesting paradox in the financial resources committed to this area of care. Although we are anxious to close some institutions, because the concept of the asylum is now completely anachronistic, paradoxically, the people of 100 years ago committed more resources to those buildings, in real terms, than we are committing today. They were splendidly built; they would not have survived for so long if they were not. Many of them are situated in vast acres of beautiful land. We saw an institution in Surrey that was advanced for its time. It had separate buildings with wonderful facilities among them, and the resources committed to it were probably more in real terms than the resources about which we are talking today.
If we consider the cost of keeping an individual in an institution or caring for him in the community, the difference may not be as significant as we might have

thought. Roughly, it costs about £11,000 per person a year in an institution, and £13,000 to £14,000 a year outside. Community care is dearer, but not much more so.
We should commend the organisations that have not waited for the Government's response to the report or for this debate, but have used the report as a lever in their areas to do something about the problem. They have used the report's recommendations to set up a dialogue with the health authorities. I was interested to hear that, on Merseyside, MIND has already entered into a contract with the health authority, under which, for each individual that MIND takes into its care from an institution, the health authority will pay £14,000 for his or her place. So far as I am aware, the scheme relates to places rather than to people. As the Minister is aware, there is a problem with the money ending with the death of the patient, because the organisation has a continuing expense, so I commend that type of deal. We should be seeking to ensure that organisations can undertake different forms of individual care, innovation and experimentation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to my area health authority, which is closing the Mary Dendy hospital for the mentally disabled? It has first-class facilities such as a hydrotherapy pool. The care which will be available once the hospital is closed will not include such facilities nor those available in the Parkside hospital which is due to close during the next 10 years. Those two hospitals have sheltered workshops and many other excellent features which will not be replaced when they are closed. Will the patients have as good a standard of living and accommodation when they are discharged into the community as they had in the hospitals? Is that factor riot important? Is it not vital that additional resources are made available to ensure that the facilities now provided in hospitals are provided when those patients go into the community?

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I recognise his interest and his anxiety about the difference between facilities available in institutions and in the community.
The problem is whether we should consider the quality of life as opposed to freedom, which cannot necessarily be measured by objects. That is a difficulty. In some ways it is not dissimilar from the way in which some people consider facilities for prisoners when they ask why they have four-star hotel accommodation while we suffer outside. None of those people would wish to be locked up behind doors. In a sense, people prefer the poverty of freedom to the wealth of slavery. People may prefer the quality of life in the community to the facilities provided for them in institutions. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. We must find a balance. We have the task, which at times is not easy, of finding the right solution.
It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that the report was unanimous. I am glad to see that it has been hailed as valuable by nearly all the specialist organisations. I hope that we shall see the proper, caring and sensitive dispatch of people with proper support out of the institutions into the community.

Mr. Steve Norris: Although I was a late joiner to the Select Committee, I should like to join in


congratulating the Committee's advisers, who, I think both sides of the Committee felt, provided an excellent service.
I take as my starting point the definitive statement by the Select Committee in paragraph 29:
Community care for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people is not a subject for partisan politics.
I believe that you will have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the spirit in which the debate has taken place so far, and I hope that it will so continue.
I congratulate the Government on having, first, endorsed and supported the concept of community care and on having devoted substantially increased funds to that principle. Since 1978, 51 per cent. more funds in real terms have been made available for the joint finance which is vital to the transfer of facilities from the hospital service to the community. The fact that year-on-year increases in schemes to which the health authority is also contributing are disregarded in terms of grant holdback is of additional benefit to hard-pressed local authorities. Those are useful steps towards financing community care.
Local authorities' personal social services expenditure has increased, not just in cash terms, but in real terms. In contrast to what is often held to be the case outside the House, the reality is a 15 per cent. increase in real terms on home helps, 9 per cent. in real terms on meals served in the home, more than 25 per cent. extra day centre places, not for the elderly, but for those who fall within the category of people with whom we are dealing, and a 26 per cent. increase in the provision for adult training centres. Those are achievements of which the Government should be proud.
The increases in expenditure are mirrored by service improvements. In 1983, 10 per cent. more people were visited at home by district nurses and health visitors, and nearly 25 per cent. more elderly people were treated by district nurses than when the Government came into office. What is more important, there are 51,000 places in day centres for the category of patient with whom we are dealing this evening. That is an increase of 18 per cent. since the Government took office. There are more places for mentally handicapped people at adult training centres.
The Government have provided special intiatives for community care. They have made £16 million available for a programme of special projects to provide alternatives to long-stay hospital care. The "Helping the Community to Care" initiative has been provided with £10·5 million. This is designed to help people care for elderly or handicapped people within the community. Local services for mentally ill elderly people have been given £6 million extra.
Support for the voluntary sector has increased from £7·5 million in 1978 to well in excess of £23 million. We must frame our observations to the Government in the light of an acceptance that they have devoted real extra resources to community care.
Having said that, we must acknowledge that the standard which the Government have set themselves is high. When the Select Committee sought a definition of community care which would describe what was meant by the concept, which is often quoted differently, it said:
Appropriate care should be provided for individuals in such a way as to enable them to lead as normal an existence as possible given their particular disabilities and to minimise disruption of life within their community.

That is no easy task. It is no cheap task.
Having acknowledged what the Government have already done and are continuing to do, I believe that we should all be aware of the warning that the Select Committee sounded in paragraph 21, when it said:
A decent community-based service for mentally ill or mentally-handicapped people cannot be provided at the same overall cost as present services. The proposition that community care could be cost-neutral is untenable.
The Committee continued, I believe correctly, more strongly when it said:
Proceeding with a policy of community care on a cost-neutral assumption is not simply naive: it is positively inhumane. Community care on the cheap would prove worse in many respects than the pattern of services to date. The Minister of Health admitted— 'If you have some hospital facility in the past which has been greatly underfunded, if you transfer the function to community care, the cost will go up.'
Surely that is the background against which we must consider what community care means for the Health Service and social services.
We must beware of a number of pitfalls which potentially lie before us. I speak as a member of a health authority and as one interested in advancing the concept of community care. Other hon. Members will no doubt deal with other aspects of the report. I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that we should, for example, be careful to ensure that in the process of returning to the community those who are clearly able to return, we do not leave the worst disabled as a rump of patients in hospital, thus in a sense dedicating our asylum facilities, not by design, but by accident and by a process of attrition. That would be unfortunate and unhelpful. We should also beware that we do not become obsessed with those who are in hospital whom we are trying to get out.
One of the most significant observations made by the Select Committee was that we tend to think of the subject in terms of closing long-stay hospitals and putting people into the community. The speeches that we have heard so far have taken that course and talked about the closure of large institutions. The Committee noted an observation, which struck me at the time as singularly appropriate and important to remember—that 90 per cent. of the care is being provided in hospitals while 90 per cent. of the patients are living in the community.
We will have misunderstood the concept if we think that community care means only closing down the big long-stay institution to transfer people into the community. Community care is about the care of those who are already out of hospital and those who have never had the opportunity to be catered for even within the National Health Service.
We should be equally concerned to respect the concept of asylum. I was worried when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) suggested that it was wrong for a health authority to say that it would close a long-stay institution but leave a facility on site for a reduced number of people. It would be wrong to leave a rump of patients who are difficult and for whom it is not convenient to make arrangements, but we have to come to terms with the concept of asylum for a limited number of people.
In west Berkshire we make a point of holding our health authority meetings in our long-stay mentally handicapped hospital because we are conscious of the fact that it is a Cinderella service. It is important that we go there. It is a good discipline because, once a month, we are able to walk around and see what is happening. I know the


christian names of patients who could have walked out of that hospital 20 years ago to start the process of becoming members of society with occasional outpatient visits. As it is, they are incapable of ever making that transition. There are patients in that hospital, Borocourt hospital, who under no circumstances could be returned to the community.

Mrs. Renée Short: I said that.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her earlier remarks. We must not assume that community care means that nobody is allowed the protection of genuine asylum in the literal sense of that word, which the National Health Service ought to be able to afford.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As my hon. Friend serves on a health authority, can he give us an assurance, from his own experience or from his experience of other authorities, that such provision is being made for the future and that there will be long-stay care and asylum care for a limited number of mentally ill patients?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend must direct his comments in another direction. I cannot give him any guarantees about what my right hon. and learned Friend may offer us at the conclusion of this debate. My authority recognises that the concept of asylum is vital, but we do not allow that to become a convenience for not making every effort to return the obvious patients, and perhaps the less obvious, to the community. I suspect that that is where the decision is important and where the veil needs to be parted. I am speaking about only a small number of people. I am convinced that, for the vast majority, the general thrust of the community care philosophy is right.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that there is a danger that the more we talk about the people who are unable to be returned to the community the more we exaggerate their number? When the Select Committee went to see a project called Nimrod in Cardiff, we were told that people are selected for community care from a list and not according to their condition. We saw people who had been in an institution for 28 years and who are now living in the community. Nobody was prepared to admit that there was anybody in the institution who was not capable of being returned to the community. Intellectually, however, I accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that there must be some people who cannot be returned to the community.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations. He is right constantly to re-examine the criteria used for retaining patients in an institution. It is possible to treat any patient, in any circumstances, in a private house if that is the aim. That cannot be the aim, however. It is vital that we get away from the idea that the private house is some kind of end in itself. We can use the private house for the vast majority of mental illness and mental handicap patients in the normalisation process, but the asylum concept remains valid for a small number of patients.
We have got past the easy side of community care. When it is obvious that patients can be returned to the community, most health authorities have developed plans to do that. We are now discussing the more difficult cases, and there are two things of which we must be extremely careful. The first is that we must not close facilities before

we open others. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has rightly reminded the House that that has not happened. I am worried that as large institutions begin to have fewer people the pressures on health authorities to speed up the process to get the last few dozen patients out will increase. We must protect those patients against the economic advantages of closing a facility too early.
When my right hon. and learned Friend gave evidence to the Select Committee, he spoke of the bridging arrangements in regard to the closure of our large institutions. My idea of bridging arrangements is not confined to capital bridging—the purchase of a house or several houses before selling the land and buildings of an institution. That is the conventional concept of a bridge, and I am most grateful for the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend recognises the need for such a facility.
More important for community care, however, is the following process. If a facility houses 400 patients and costs £400,000 a year to run, that represents £1,000 per patient. If one takes away 200 patients, that makes it £2,000 per year for each patient. If one is left with 20 patients, the deduction is obvious. It is also clear that my mathematics are at fault, but one adds many more noughts to the cost as the number of patients declines. The lesson is that as the number of patients retained in an institution drops, almost the same amount of money has to be spent as when a greater number of patients were housed in there. A major increase in resources is needed to tide us over a transitional period which will not last for one year, or two years, or even for 10.
Hospital care for the mentally handicapped and those who are mentally ill has not always been as good as it ought to be. If community care is to succeed, it must be done well. It is better not to do it at all than to do it badly. To do it well means that long-term extra expense will be involved. Extra costs will be incurred, not because it is more expensive to maintain a series of private houses than it is to maintain one large institution, but because we are saying that we will not allow Cinderella services to exist. Staffing ratios will have to be improved. A massive increase in resources will need to be allocated to day centres, adult training centres and occupational therapy departments.
Paragraph 28 of the Select Committee's report praises the staff of hospitals for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. It says:
There are not words powerful enough to praise the dedication of thousands of people who care for their mentally disabled fellows.
I have the privilege of seeing them just once a month. I am also privileged to be able to walk in and then walk out again. They are unable to do that. They have to stay in the Borocourt, Fairmile and Wayland hospitals in my constituency and in similar hospitals in the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members.
In this unglamorous specialty, on very many occasions doctors work many more hours than their contracts stipulate. The nurses, both male and female, provide constant care, despite the almost intolerable frustration of lack of progress in their patients. Progress is usually made centimetre by centimetre. In many cases they work in less than ideal conditions. The Select Committee salutes them. They are an example to us all. They are entitled to know that this House cares about them and about the patients in their care. This debate is to be welcomed for this group of


people, if for no other. I look forward to hearing what right hon. and hon. Friends have to say on this important subject.

Mr. Ken Weetch: The Select Committee has provided a valuable service to the House, for its report contains a great deal of constructive thought and comment upon some difficult policy issues and it throws light on mainly difficult and sensitive areas. Since I am the first hon. Member who is not a member of the Select Committee to speak, I should put it on record that the Committee has provided a valuable source of reference on this subject.
My remarks will concentrate upon mental illness and the psychiatric services in which I have a special interest. In the East Suffolk district health authority there are two large, old-style mental hospitals: St. Clement's and St. Audrey's. How to deal with these matters often comes full circle. In the 1870s, the person in charge of St. Audrey's hospital wrote down his thoughts on mental illness and the way in which the service should be organised. In a thoughtful memorandum, which officially has not seen the light of day, he said that he believed that psychiatric services and services for the mentally ill should be dispersed in the community and that professional services should be dispersed in local areas, because this would be of far more benefit to those whom the services are designed to help. That only goes to show there are no new ideas and that old ideas are revamped.
I have to declare an interest as a sponsored member of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. Many of its members are in the front line of the provision of those services. It recruits heavily from ancillaries and nurses in the psychiatric sector. My comments are the result of what I have seen and heard. I recommend to the House a recent working party report by COHSE: the Mallinson report on the future of psychiatric services. It is a very important piece of research into the subject.
The term "community care" is not defined. A number of reports on community care have been published but none of them defines community care in detail. The professional recommendations about the best way forward vary greatly. There are major differences of professional opinion about the best way forward and about the ultimate shape of psychiatric care. However, a rough and ready definition involves the phasing out of the large, long-stay, old-style mental health hospitals. They have come in for a great deal of flak, but the work that is being done in two large hospitals in east Suffolk is of a very high order. It is often done in daunting circumstances.
On the other side of the coin, community care means that most people who need appropriate long-term care can and should be looked after in the community. I am advised that other features of community care will include multidisciplinary community support, the relocation of specialist services in local settings, and the co-operation of the local authorities and personal social services. Of course, the whole structure will be underpinned by a framework of joint financial arrangements. However, I want to express some reservations about the concept of community care.
On the one hand a good deal must be said for such policies because the aim of all psychiatric therapy is to

equip the individual to cope in the community. The ability to cope in the framework of everyday life is the measure of whether the person is improving and whether his mental condition is improving. That is an important principle, which I wholeheartedly accept. The other assumption is that the needs of the individual are best catered for in the community, within an integrated network of different professional services. Another advantage is that the support of families and voluntary support groups can be harnessed, and I think that that is a very valuable princple.
I think that most hon. Members will accept that far too many people have spent far too long in institutions of one sort or another. If one cannot cope very well and one goes into an institution, that institution and its framework become a crutch as time goes by, and people who have been institutionalised for a long time find the transition back to community life difficult.
While I have every sympathy with the aims of community care policies, and while I accept the proposition that, as a society, we must mobilise community resources in a structured way to help those who are mentally ill, I have reservations on the way in which they are being put into operation. In the first place, community care is not a cheap, but an expensive option. To provide a framework of support services is potentially expensive. There were certain economies of scale—if I can put it in economic terms—in having people under one roof in the old-style mental hospitals. That cost option is no longer available as the old hospitals are closed. To echo the words of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), who served on the Select Committee, there is no possibility that the Government will be able to get away with that policy at a reduced cost. In my view that is not possible. Such a view has long been on the record. For instance, the Nodder report of 1980 said that the advantages of community care were doubtful if no extra resources in real terms were to be provided. That has long been realised by people in the profession.
An important point is that when people are released into the community they then become the partial responsibility of the families concerned and there is sometimes an intolerable strain on family life if the support services are not properly organised. I have encountered cases in my constituency where families are having a job to cope. I notice from paragraph 45 of the Select Committee report that a general practitioner said:
I have never been asked for my opinion in 27 years of practice as to whether somebody's family could cope with them if they were discharged, let alone invited to a case conference.
That is a serious point to make. There is no point in discharging people into the community if the burden on the individual families is intolerable.
If the responsibilities for those services are divided between local authorities and the NHS, there is a very great danger of a confusion of responsibility and no clear line of authority as to the development of those services. I accept what the Minister of Health said when he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) to quote an example of a hospital having been closed too quickly before the existing services could take over and cope. Nevertheless that danger should be borne in mind. If there is any rush to close those large hospitals before the framework has been adequately prepared in the community, significant problems will be thrown up.
In my view, if we are looking at the future shape of the framework, psychiatric services and services for mental illness should continue to be an NHS responsibility. In 1979 the Royal Commission on the Health Service said:
The capacity of local authorities to develop services and in particular residential accommodation for those who are considerably mentally disturbed may have been overestimated.
In the polite diplomatic language of a Royal Commission, that meant that it is casting serious doubt upon the capacity of some local authorities to take the strain of that problem when the difficulties start to accumulate. I believe that the Royal Commission was right. Leaving the responsibility with the NHS is the only way to prevent considerable variations in the quality of community services up and down the country. That is a well-established point. When services are left to local authorities, they vary considerably in quality from place to place. We should not take such a risk with mental illness and psychiatric health. Therefore, I should be most doubtful that in some cases that was the right way forward.
I did not stand up to speak in the debate prepared to argue about finance. I am simply not an expert on that, so I could not sustain the argument. Even on a prime facie observation, local authorities themselves have been the object of quite complex financial constraints. I am not debating the merits of that one way or the other, but the point must be made that fundamental objections can be made to a system of finance for psychiatric services that depends on a redistribution of funding between the NHS and personal social services. I do not see that as a coherent financial way forward.
Funding community care can be too easily disguised so that one is not increasing real resources but merely shifting current resources through complicated book-keeping and

the mechanism of joint funding. If we are not careful, community care can turn into community neglect where people get lost.
Already there is great concern among those who have spent a lifetime with mentally ill patients—people who are mentally ill to one degree or another—that there might be dire consequences if mistakes are made in the policy. At time of rate-capping, financial targets, and financial penalties, together with the progressive reductions in the rate support grant, is not a good time to be talking of increased local responsibility for the critical service for the mentally ill.
The burdens of mental illness will increase as elderly people form a bigger proportion of the community, and the psychogeriatric services will come under much strain. A few years ago the audit inspectorate reported that there were wide variations between one local authority and another, and their abilities to cope with the problems that I have described are in many cases limited. Local authorities are too proud to abdicate their responsibilities to private institutions which are often of a doubtful quality.
The needs of patients and those who suffer from mental illness should be paramount and should not be subject to considerations of lowering costs and closing old hostels as quickly as possible. The services should be firmly and emphatically under the control of the National Health Service because only that kind of control can ensure equality of provision and, I hope, a high standard of provision between one area and another. These services should not be left to local authority backwoodsmen. There should be a fully integrated service within the context of the National Health Service. One hopes that in the long run the psychiatric service can lose the stigma and, indeed, the reality of having been for too long a Cinderella service.

Health and Personal Social Services

Mr. John Hannam: I welcome this important debate on a subject with which I have been associated for some 10 years. I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and her Committee on their work in producing such an excellent report.
I recall an occasion in the early 1970s when the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, who was then Secretary of State for Social Services came down to my constituency to open the Tree Tops centre for mentally handicapped children. It is a wonderful centre which has developed over the years. What sticks in my memory is that, when he entered the hall with all the dignatories and people gathered there, the music being played was Gilbert and Sullivan. As he came in, the song from the Mikardo which started up was "Behold the Lord High Executioner". I have reminded him of that on several occasions since. My right hon. Friend was responsible then for the launching of a major Government initiative for the mentally handicapped, and much of the progress made since then is due to his initiative at that time.
I should like to pay tribute to the record of my local health authority, Exeter health authority, because it is probably one of the leaders in the country in the progress being made in moving patients out of the old institutions and into new staffed hostels and local support units. The latest progress report which the authority has just sent me reads:
All programmes are on target and entering a most interesting phase as the new community services open, offering a greater variety of help and support than was ever possible by the central hospitals.
I am very proud of the authority's record and I keep in close contact with it. It is one of the authorities we can look to, and I am sure that the Select Committee found that when its members went there. I do not want to dwell on the overall situation and go back over points which have been raised by other hon. Members. However, I stress that there is a good working relationship between the health authority in Exeter and the local social services department. That seems to be why the financial resources and the staff can be switched across the resource fields. That has happened there, and it ought to be possible to achieve the same benefits and progress elsewhere.
I should like to raise three separate issues which concern us in the all-party disablement group and which require urgent answers and action from the Government. The first concerns children in long-stay hospitals and institutions; the second relates to emergency alarm systems, which are important to those who come out of institutions and require help in their own homes; and the third is my concern about board and lodging payments. Only a small number of children are in long-stay mental hospitals, but the matter is urgent in terms of the lives of those involved.
At a recent meeting of the all-party disablement group, representatives from Exodus came to speak to us. That is an organisation concerned entirely with getting children out of long-stay hospitals. Exodus has just produced a report called "Still There" which shows that in England and Wales 450 children are still living in hospitals with 25

beds or more. Not only are children still living in the hospitals, but new admissions to those hospitals are still taking place. There were four admissions this year, and the last one was in May in the west midlands. Surely children should be receiving child care and not medical care in the sense of being in hospital institutions. It is quite wrong for them to be in hospital beds under institutionalised care.
Tremendous success has been achieved in recent years in moving children out of hospitals. In 1980 the then Secretary of State said that there were more than 2,000 children in long-stay hospitals. We are now down to 450, so I am not cavilling at the progress which has been made. One of the principal reasons which makes the statistics appalling is that many of the children have reached the age of 16 and are no longer counted in child statistics. The question must be asked, what happens to them when they reach the age of 16? Many of them have no alternative but to go back into hospital.
If we look at the statistics for those under the age of 16 living in hospitals with 25 or more beds, it is clear that there is a wide disparity between the regional health authorities that have successfully taken children out of hospitals and those that have not. For instance, Wessex and the North-West regional health authorities have all but completed the removal of children from their hospitals. On the other hand, the authorities in the west midlands, southeast Thames and Oxford each have more than 45 children living in hospitals. A number of health authorities have more than 10 children living in hospitals.
I should like to see a final onslaught by the Minister to remove the remaining children, to get it all over with. At the same time, we must look at the type of care they will be going into. The all-party disablement group accepted the recommendation by Exodus that there was a need for the Government to add emphasis to circulars already issued requesting action in this area. Prime responsibility for the care of children must lie with the Social Services Department, and the first step is to ensure that each child is reviewed by the social, health service and education authorities, and the second step is to ensure that the results of their reviews are implemented.
I should like to draw attention to early-day motion 844 which calls upon regional health authorities and the Government to take urgent action to remove these 450 children from long-stay mental handicap hospitals and to find them appropriate accommodation in the community. We want an immediate end to the admission of children to hospitals. The Government have achieved a great deal in the last few years, but in his summing up, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the Government must take such action and add some impetus to the action which requires to be taken by the regional health authorities.
Another problem referred to the all-party disablement group concerns emergency alarm systems. Here I have a specific point to raise concerning the legislative provisions governing the grants and allowances for the installation and planning of alarm systems. For many people, particularly elderly people, an alarm system might prevent them from being rehoused in alternative accommodation. I should like to raise a number of points and ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at them. However, I do not necessarily expect detailed answers tonight.
For example, do the housing benefit regulations of 1982, which allow for benefit to be paid to cover rental and running costs of an entry phone or intercom system for the


proper enjoyment of the dwelling, include emergency alarm systems? Do the provisions in the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to allow local authorities to make financial provisions for "aids to daily living" cover emergency alarm systems?' Under the Supplementary Benefits (Single Payments) Regulations a benefit officer is able to grant a single payment if it is the only means by which serious damage or risk to health or safety can be prevented. Is there a case for giving more guidance about this regulation, as the typical user of an emergency alarm system would satisfy it?
These are just some of the areas that need clarification. I hope that they will be considered tonight and that answers will be given in due course.
The vexed question of board and lodging payments gives rise to concern because of the effect that they will have on residential care and nursing homes, and the implications of that for the provision of care in the community for the mentally handicapped and mentally ill. Many homes are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to priovide good care within the new financial limits.
A number of glaring anomalies in the new regulations have led to the situation whereby those who require the most special care are unable to pay for it within the existing limit. The two anomalies are, first, that local authorities do not have the power to top up payments to people over pension age or in nursing homes and, secondly, that, while the new level is £170 a week for a person disabled under pension age, it is only £110 a week for someone who becomes disabled after pension age.
As to people over pension age who suffer from either a mental disorder or a mental handicap, it is not clear from the regulations whether they qualify for a slightly higher limit. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. Even if they qualify, the rate for someone suffering from a mental disorder but not a mental handicap is £120 a week, but for someone suffering from a mental handicap it is £140 a week. These limits do not account for the additional care that many mentally handicapped and mentally ill people require.
If a home is unable to provide care for an elderly person at £110 a week, that person is unable to look to the local authority for topping up. Such people are therefore faced with a number of options. If they have been living at home, they can continue to live at home but presumably in inappropriate accommodation. Alternatively, they can look for a home that can accommodate them at the given price. That home is most unlikely to be able to provide them with the care that they require, and it is likely to be well away from where they have always lived. The third situation arises for someone who has been living in a hospital for the mentally handicapped. Those people have no alternative but to continue to live in the hospital because they are unable to pay to live in a residential or nursing home. The result is that appropriate care in the community is not being provided.
As to the different limits between those disabled before pension age and those disabled after pension age, it is highly likely that someone becoming disabled after pension age will have to remain in hospital much longer than should be necessary. Alternatively, such people may find a second-rate home, but again that is likely to be away from where they have always lived.
The limits are proving difficult anyway, but they are penalising most severely those homes that provide special

facilities and place emphasis on rehabilitation. Their costs, and consequently their fees, are inevitably higher as they provide physiotherapy, occupational therapy and general welfare facilities. Basically, they are providing more than just board and lodging, and if we are looking for good practice for care in the community, we must look towards the provision of these additional facilities.
As well as hitting hardest the most severely disabled people, these regulations also hit the voluntary homes, because in the main the voluntary homes provide care for the most severely disabled people. Generally speaking, such care is not something that private homes wish to take on. The regulations are clobbering those homes that are providing genuine care at a genuine price for the sake of putting an end to those other homes that have been guilty of abusing the regulations in the past.
The regulations present us with a complete overhaul of the whole system of payments to people in residential and nursing care. It appears that very little consideration has been given to the mechanics of the system. The general understanding of the regulations is that local authorities will pay for residents and then claim back from the resident what he or she has claimed in supplementary benefit from the DHSS. For people under pensionable age, the difference in the charge and the money from the DHSS will be paid by the local authority, and that is the topping up to which I have already referred.
Reports have been coming through—in the last week such a report came through to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—that local authorities are totally unable to work out exactly what their responsibilities are. They are reluctant to pay for a resident unless they can be sure that they will be able to recover the supplementary benefit from the resident. Therefore, the resident must apply for supplementary benefit from the DHSS, which will not award it until that resident has a place in a residential home. That is a bureaucratic nightmare that is most certainly slowing up the whole process for the person who needs to go into a residential home or nursing care.
I fully understand that these changes are being monitored very carefully and that the payments limits are being kept under review, but I cannot stress too emphatically that this is an extremely urgent problem. I know that the Minister is looking at representations from various organisations and that a number of them are collating information on how these residential care homes will be affected. But unless some immediate changes are made—and very soon—it will be too late, and many horrifying and distorting stories will reach the press, just as we have seen with the effect that the changes have had on young people under the age of 26.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of these problems and that he and the Government wish to correct them as soon as possible. Until they are corrected, and until these other anomalies are wiped out, we shall not achieve our objective of real care in the community. I hope that these points will be taken seriously by my right hon. and learned Friend and that he will deal with some of them when he replies.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The reference to Exeter by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. M. Hannam) were accurate, because the Select Committee, which visited that


area, was impressed by the standard of care and facilities provided. But that contrasts markedly with some of the other things that members of the Select Committee saw.
My experience of that Select Committee was one of great personal learning, and to some extent profound horror, about some of the things that still exist, especially in our large and older mental institutions. It has been said on many occasions, and it is worth repeating, that as a society we have condemned many people to conditions that ought to be unacceptable in this day and age.
The Minister and all those who gave evidence to the Committee accepted and re-emphasised those comments. As a Parliament and as a society we have to shape up. We must not pay lip service to the idea of getting away from these institutions. We must first make sure that this is done in a proper and acceptable fashion. It must be recognised that we are talking about individuals coming out of institutions and not statistics. Secondly, we must ensure that we do not move people into new and smaller institutions which offer nothing in the spirit of community care. That is probably the single most important thing that I gained from the Committee's deliberations.
The point was hammered home time after time that there are many extremely worrying examples. For example, attempts have been made to establish structures which were not appropriate to the enhancement of the lives of individuals. The whole ethos of community care is so individual that it is virtually impossible to find global solutions or to operate from outright diktats from the centre. The Minister for Health has said on different occasions that it is necessary to give that type of discretion at local level. It involves a whole new ethos of attitudes to community care.
There is a need, for example, for very close coordination by different agencies. I am concerned, despite the comments of those who feel happier, that there is still dislocation between the health authorities and the Department of Health and Social Security and others who are the professional carers, such as general practitioners and those in society with responsibility. That sentiment was echoed by the response of the directors of the social services to the Select Committee report in which they drew attention to what they felt was a lack of co-ordination. I am worried that if that lack of co-ordination is allowed to continue and develop we shall end up, 40 years on, with everybody saying that we have failed as a society to cater for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and that it was not our fault but somebody else's.
A dispute has arisen between the North-Western regional health authority and almost all others concerned about the level of funding passed from the health authority to the local authorities when individuals are transferred from the care of one to the other. The North-Western regional health authority has been using the figure of £11,300 as the amount which should pass with each individual placement. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), who pointed out that on Merseyside £14,000 was transferred from the health authority to MIND when it undertook such a task.
The city of Manchester has calculated that a figure of £19,000 would be more reasonable. The Minister raises his eyebrows, but the regional health authority is insisting upon a figure which the local health authorities and others

concerned feel is inadequate. I know of a case within the Trafford local authority area where a considerable delay ensued before a person was accepted for transfer from an institution to a community-based structure. The result was that the quality of his life considerably deteriorated. The local authority could not afford to develop its own facilities fast enough because of lack of money from the health authority, which is also not happy with the situation.
When I raised the matter in a written question, the Minister made a very fair point and one which I would concede completely. He said:
I am not convinced that the production of a centrally compiled account of funding arrangements within individual regions would be helpful without an equally detailed account of the service developments proposed."—[Official Report, 4 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 246.]
I accept the Minister's point about something that, by its very definition, if it is to be adequate community care, has to be so individually based that prescriptions cannot be given from the Elephant and Castle or any large area health authority.
Nevertheless, we have to accept that, even dealing with individually based services, it is necessary to take account of the central funding of resources. The difficulties of which I have spoken will show that the funding is inadequate. It is not satisfactory to allow one authority to blame another. In years to come, we should not be saying that it was a good change of concept but in practical terms had no impact because the different approaches would not, or could not, work together.
Health authorities feel themselves to be constrained by financing problems, and for obvious reasons are reluctant to pass across any more money than the minimum with which they can get away. That is not surprising, but it runs counter to the concept of community care. We should be asking about the individual, not whether he should be transferred out of the institution and into the community but what resources and facilities need to be made available within society to allow him to live an adequate, independent and fulfilled life. Inevitably, that means that we, as a society, have to accept the high resourcing cost. I fear that, the way that the funding of both local authorities and health services is going, we shall not see that.
It is important to draw attention to some of the things that the Select Committee said. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) spoke of the important matter of families and the resources given to them. He spoke about the needs of the family and the need for adequate support for family members caring for others in the family. One witness to the Committee pointed out that professional carers are caring within professional working hours, but members of a family care for 24 hours a day, seven days a week and even, sometimes, 52 weeks a year. We must do much more to make the role of family carers more simple.
Recommendation 36 says:
We recommend that local authorities give priority to providing respite care sensitive to the varying needs of different people.
They specifically means respite for those caring within the family structure.
The hon. Member for Exeter touched on the important new board and lodgings regulations. When the Minister attended the Select Committee's meetings, he was questioned closely about the position of people who were


moved out into various hostels and houses in multiple occupation. The Committee pointed out that local authorities should be given power to designate as residential care private homes with more than a given proportion of dependent residents.
Many people move to such places from institutions. The standard of care, as far as the Committee could make out, is grossly inadequate. It is necessary that there should be some means of checking and some responsibility on the local authorities to guarantee that the interests of people in such accommodation is protected. That means that there must be adequate licensing and adequate inspection and monitoring arrangements to make such places work properly. The Committee said that community care is not a cheap option, as many hon. Members have already pointed out, and it is important that we recognise that.
I have quoted figures and the Minister might quote different figures. It is certain that the lower cost individuals— if that is not a too inappropriate way to describe human beings—are transferred from institutions first. However, the cost of care in the community is rising. If we are not merely to give lip service to the spirit of the report, we shall have to rethink our attitudes to social provision for all those who live devalued lives. I am referring not only to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, but to the homeless and young disaffected people. We shall have to rethink social provisions.
We have no cheap option. We cannot simply say, "Yes, we have a big heart." We must make resources available to ensure that we provide local services. The needs of individuals are not cheap to provide. Society will not find it cheap to provide facilities for all those involved in community care and community living—the families, the professional carers and the extended carers.
We have to make a commitment. I see no evidence of a movement towards making that commitment and I find that sad. If the Select Committee report is left to gather dust we shall miss a massive opportunity.

Mr. Roy Galley: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) gave a competent précis of the Select Committee report. I began to wonder whether there would be anything left for anyone else to say. However, the hon. Lady used a slant of her own, with that brusque charm which we have come to know and cherish. In her exposition she did not start at square one of the Select Committee's deliberations.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) referred to the definition of community care. One must first define it and then ask whether as defined it is right. There was much debate in the Select Committee, which has not been illustrated in tonight's debate, about whether the concept of community care was right. The debate continues in the country.
The oral and visual evidence given to the Select Committee overwhelmingly stated that the principles of a community-based, flexible response policy to the needs of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people was right. That is not a matter of administrative convenience or of cost, but a matter of the quality of life.
In the more personal nature of smaller treatment units, particularly family-sized units, there is a degree of self-reliance and responsibility which has a curative effect

upon the majority of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, and gives them a better quality of life.
In the last 15 years enormous strides have been made in the quality of life of physically disabled people, although much more remains to be done. We must now start to do the same for menially disabled people. Two or three years ago the Government set the ball rolling by giving priority within the Health Service to the mentally handicapped and mentally ill. The Select Committee report is another milestone in a crusade to improve the lot of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.
Two key factors in the Select Committee report are vital — flexibility and individualism. Individual needs are important, and when one considers discharging a person from hospital and changing the method of care an individual care plan must be developed. This requires a host of alternative approaches, as we discovered as the Select Committee travelled in the United Kingdom and the United States. It may be a core and cluster arrangement—rare in practice, but common in theory—of extended family dwellings, small staffed homes, hospital-type establishments with 20 to 25 beds, or even larger establishments. That is why I say that there must be flexibility. Each area must develop its own policies, and it would be wrong to rule out the idea of a 50 or 100-bed unit, because in certain circumstances that may be an appropriate way of dealing with the problems of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

Mr. Weetch: The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting comments about the quality of life for the mentally ill. If it is to be a community-based policy, he must accept that the community is still suspicious of the mentally ill. If, therefore, a mentally ill person is discharged into a community in which suspicion is abroad, to put it no higher than that, because there is insufficient understanding of mental illness, his discharge may mean the reverse of increasing his quality of life.

Mr. Galley: From the units which he Select Committee visited, the weight of evidence seems to be that going into the community and having some self-reliance has a curative effect on the individuals concerned. There may have to be, at least initially, a large measure of staff support, cushioning the effects of a community which may not react well. However, as one sees, for example, wth drug misuse clinics and rehabilitation centres which are closely associated with the community, those barriers can quickly break down.
My right hon. and learned Friend may be bored with the same point being made to him. It is, however, important that points relating to discharge are made by hon. Members in all parts of the House, because it is among the most important issues that the Select Committee considered. There is no evidence from this country that people have been discharged into the community and then not properly looked after. In the United States, however, there was substantial evidence that that had happened there.
We must make sure, therefore, that an imaginative and flexible range of alternatives—from the small, family-sized unit to the larger unit — are available in the community before hospitals are closed. In other words, proper care plans must be developed before people are discharged into the community.
Much has been said abut bridging finance. Joint finance, with people being taken into the community with a cost tag, as it were, attached to them, will not solve all the problems that will be presented as we develop the policy of discharge into the community.
It will be possible in my area of Calderdale to carry out an imaginative response to the discharge of such people only by the provision of considerable central finance. That finance, welcome though it will be, will not be available in all areas. Considerable capital consequences will arise from each change as it takes place, and that will arise before any savings are realised from closing large, impersonal hospital complexes.
Some flexible arrangements for bridging finance are helpful. They will have to be developed into a system with a more formalised central bridging fund, and that will involve initial money being provided by the Department of Health and Social Security. Out of such a fund, money can be donated for immediate needs, and gradually assets will accumulate which, in time, can be used to build up a network of community care facilities. In due course that network will be completed and the money that has accumulated will be available for other Health Service provision. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give considerable and detailed thought to that approach.
There is a small proportion of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped for whom radical change may not be appropriate. Some are suffering from multiple handicap or are so ill that they would not be able to cope with any sort of community facility. Such people form a small minority, but we must recognise that they exist. There are others who are old, and a change in their environment would be counter-productive. There may be a requirement to move from a large building to a small building, but we are discussing individuals for whom there cannot be change. These people will be unable to move from an environment that is essentially institutionalised to one that is community based.
As the process of change gathers pace there will be lessons to be learned. There will be a need for small adjustments to policy as time passes. In developing the strategy, the advice of the Select Committee is, "We agree that this approach is right, and let us get on with the job, but festina lente. Let us do so with sensitivity and care."
There is a need for radical change, but it must be accompanied by careful thought and full preparation. The growing pace of community care provision will mean changes for staff in many disciplines. The staff will need new skills and attitudes. The change of focus from the hospital to the community will not always be easy. The development of multi-discipline approaches and the breaking down of rigid demarcations will be extremely important. The evidence suggests that the dedicated staff who run our mental illness and mental handicap services have embraced change with considerable enthusiasm. However, there are small groups that will be resistent to change. The Select Committee met a degree of resistance from psychiatrists and from other sources as its members visited various parts of the country. However, in practically every instance the professional bodies were supportive of the new policies and the change of focus.
Undoubtedly an element of caution is proper, especially among psychiatrists and the various shortage specialties

that are involved in dealing with the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. We need to balance the airing and resolution of anxieties with the need to make progress with successful change. The trend towards community care will be only one of the pressures that will lead to change in the work of general practice.
The presence of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped in the community will place greater pressures on general practitioners. It is right that they should be involved closely in the treatment of people once they have been discharged from hospital. General practitioners must be deeply involved in the treatment of those who have never been in a hospital. One senses that at times general practitioners have been resistent and reluctant to be involved closely in the care of these people, but they have to co-operate with many others. The involvement of GPs will mean that they, the GPs, will need to manage their time more efficiently and optimise the use of their skills. They will need to free themselves from more minor asks that can be dealt with by nurses, or pharmacists, for example.
There will need to be flexibility. For example, GPs will have to be prepared to refer patients to community psychiatric nurses, and the role of the nurse will need to develop within a team approach. An excellent service is currently being provided. It is just beginning to grow and to make an impact upon us and we must give it considerable assistance. If we are to make the best use of CPN services, it will be necessary for more staff to move into that area. That will create a need for proper training and deployment and a more coherent approach to their terms and conditions of employment as compared with hospital-based staff. Within the development of CPNs and community nursing services, more parts of the country must place emphasis on developing community mental handicap teams.
The Select Committee was impressed by the amount of co-operation between a range of medical, nursing and social service professionals and stressed the need to strengthen that co-operation. Gone are the days when different professionals worked in their own tight little boxes. There is an increasing need for the co-operation of equals.
It is too easy to become involved in sterile arguments about administrative structures, but there may come a time when, as these services develop and barriers are broken down, we need to provide administratively as well as practically a combined health and social service system.
Greater co-operation, a reduction in barriers and increased sensitivity are needed by DHSS staff dealing with social security, because they become increasingly important when the mentally ill and mentally handicapped live in the community. The benefit entitlement of people moved out of hospital into local authority or NHS regulated accommodation is an important consideration. There seems to be an inconsistency in the operation of the various regulations when people change from one type of accommodation to another. Significant changes in accommodation may not be dealt with sensitively by social security staff.
Rigidity, whether in social security, social service or medical matters, is the wrong approach towards the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I hope that we shall develop a flexible, individualised system. I was encouraged by the suggestions in the social security reviews that the social fund could be used flexibly to meet


the need for community care as people are discharged into the community and that a sensitive evaluation should be made of the needs of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped to give a new quality to their lives.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I compliment the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on the sense of the points that he made which were drawn from his experience as a member of the Select Committee. I was not a member of that Committee, so my comments will be brief.
The Committee's report is excellent, featuring a number of practical challenges that face us and bringing us face to face with the question whether we have the commitment to carry out the programmes leading to the integration in the community of the mentally handicapped or mentally ill. I shall concentrate on mental handicap, because I have more knowledge of that aspect, but many of my points will relate to mental illness as well.
The Committee's brief was geared mainly to the position in England, but the Committee also went to Cardiff. The success or failure of the Welsh initiatives with respect to policies for the mentally handicapped is relevant to the thrust of the report. A few years ago, the "All Wales Strategy for the Development of Services for Mentally Handicapped People". suggested not long-stay hospitals but 36-bed or 48-bed hospitals as a means towards integration in the community of the mentally handicapped. The horrified reaction of many people not only in Wales but elsewhere led to the good strategy which we now have which was described in the November Mencap conference in Madrid, which I attended, as the best theoretical plan in western Europe. Unfortunately, theory and practice are not always the same, and we are experiencing considerable difficulties in turning many aspects of the plan into reality.
In the context of the Select Committee's report, it is worth noting three main principles of the "All Wales" strategy. It is important to note that it is written into the strategy that
these general principles apply to all mentally handicapped people, however severe their handicaps.
The first is:
Mentally handicapped people should have a right to normal patterns of life within the community.
That is also the main thrust of the Select Committee report. Secondly:
Mentally handicapped people should have a right to be treated as individuals.
This means that they and their families must play a full part in decisions intended to help them. Clearly, it is easier for the less acutely handicapped to take a meaningful part in decisions affecting them and to practise self-advocacy. For those who are not capable of personal direct involvement, the advocacy service must be developed to ensure that their needs and requirements are taken fully into account. In due course, we may need to address our minds to developing a structure to ensure that.
Thirdly, the strategy states:
Mentally handicapped people require additional help from the communities in which they live and from professional services if they are to develop their maximum potential as individuals.
That them has emerged time and again in today's debate. We are not talking about cut-price options. We are talking about what is right and gives people dignity and a meaningful life as opposed to the terrible existences that

they have led in long-stay hospitals over the years. Making this system work is thus likely to require greater rather than smaller resources, especially during the interim period, and I am glad that the Select Committee report addresses itself to that aspect.
As the long-stay hospitals move out into the community, the patients most capable of doing so will go out while those who remain are likely to be those with the most problems and in need of the greatest resources. In any case, the overheads will remain to be met for a considerable period. Regrettably, some patients may never move out into the community, although we should aim to get as many as possible out of the long-stay hospitals and into suitable care.
There will thus be a parallel demand for community-based services and for continuity of the hospital services and it is important that the Government clearly accept that. The morale of many people in the Health Service is low because they are uncertain about what is to happen to the hospitals and to their own involvement as the emphasis shifts to the social services. I am sure that the Select Committee is right to state in recommendation No. 55:
In the long-term, this inquiry has confirmed that the separation of health and social services for mentally disabled people is illogical and inimical to joint services. Some means of eventually bringing the two services together is desirable, which would not destroy the present degree of integration of social services with other local authority services, nor diminish the priority given by either the NHS or local authorities to mental disability services.
It is important that that should be placed on the record. We must work towards that end, not by drawing social services away from local authorities but by bringing the Health Service at the sharp end — the local, consumer end — closer to the local government structure. If we are to make care in the community meaningful, we must develop locally based domiciliary services because the kind of service that is provided on an institutional basis in long-stay hospitals will be equally needed by people living in small groups or in their own homes. The services will be much more difficult to arrange, but they must be provided if people are not to miss out.
I take the example of medical services. Many general practitioners have no training and very little experience of handling mentally handicapped people, who occasionally become ill just as anyone else does. General practitioners may need some specialised knowledge to treat and respond to those patients. The same applies to nurses in ordinary hospitals into which mentally handicapped people may need to go for a few days. There needs to be an awareness of the training available for the staff who are dealing with them.
We heard from the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) of the need to turn off the tap as a first step towards integration, and to ensure that no young people under 16 go into long-stay hospitals. That has been the objective of successive Governments, but regrettably we are a long way from achieving it.
We heard some disturbing figures in the all-party disablement group last week. I subsequently tabled a question relating to Wales. I asked how many young people under 16 are resident in long-stay hospitals in Wales, and I find that there are 43 such persons there now in 20 long-stay hospitals or units to which they may go. I now have an update on the figures that were given last week, and apparently 10 such people have been admitted


during 1985. If we are not getting things right at that end, we shall never get the integration into the community that we seek.
I am glad to say that integration is happening in some places. In my constituency last Friday, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), was present with me at the opening of a community-based facility. I think that the Minister and other hon. Members will be interested to hear about it.
A constituent and good friend of mine, Gwynn Davies, and his wife Mary, who have a mentally handicapped son who is now in his twenties, had determined to get a community-based facility for mentally handicapped people in their own village. They set up a non-profit-making company, with trustees, and with 200 villagers as shareholders in the company, to develop a small community home for three mentally handicapped people, a shop in which they can work, and a few acres of land in which they can do agricultural and horticultural work. They are getting the financial support that is necessary from the public sector through the Welsh Office and the "All Wales" strategy.
That is an example of enthusiasm on a voluntary basis within the community being tied together with the resources that are available only through the public sector and the state, to get development on a human level on a scale that is meaningful to the people that will benefit from it. Unfortunately, not every village in Wales or in England has a Gwynn and Mary Davies, but many of them have the boys and girls and the men and women who need that sort of initiative.
The challenge is, how do we get community-based services integrated into the community to grow with the enthusiasm and the flair that is seen in the sort of project that I mentioned without becoming bureaucratic on a small scale, in the same way that the long-stay hospitals are bureaucratic on a larger scale? It is not an easy aim to achieve, but it can be done. Three or four years ago I saw how people had succeeded in doing it in Sweden by making sure that the resources, the commitment and the determination were present.
If we are to turn the theory into practice, we need a tremendous commitment. We have to avoid the pitfalls of bureaucracy. We have to avoid putting people into jobs and thinking that by appointing more theoretical people behind desks we shall succeed. We must have people who are enthusiastic at the sharp end. It is a challenge to every Government, and one that is worthy of the effort.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I think it would be wise to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). She will be leaving the House at the end of this Parliament and she will be greatly missed. She has held together in the Committee a very disparate bunch of people. Whatever our arguments and disagreements, we owe her a great deal for her deeds and commitment to social services and to the welfare of our disabled people thoroughout the country.
The hon. Lady said that the nub of the question is resources, and I hope that the House will recognise that the

chance of getting those resources for the National Health Service and local authorities is much better under this Administration than under any previous one.
In the last decade, the cash allocated to the National Health Service — for example, the current money for England—has gone up by three times, but in real terms we have seen a steady rise since this Parliament took office in 1979, compared with a fall in real terms in the mid-1970s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) produced many figures. With everyone else, I have done 60 hours work this week already and, like him, I tend to find that figures start to become a little peculiar when one has not had much sleep. Therefore, I shall merely draw attention to the trends. The fall in real terms in the mid-1970s took place when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was the Labour Minister for Health. One wishes to put that on the record and say, so much for his comments about nurses during Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon.
During Prime Minister's Question Time, questions were raised about whether the Conservative Government want more public expenditure and what our attitude is. The Prime Minister said that the key factor was the percentage of GDP represented by this public expenditure. We should put on record the fact that the allocation to the National Health Service under this Administration has consistently been about 2·9 per cent. of GDP, which compares with 2·5 per cent. or 2·6 per cent. under the Labour Government.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a falling total.

Mrs. Currie: It was not on a falling total — [Interruption.] I invite the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Lady is talking about maintaining expenditure on the Health Service, which is not true. There have been significant cuts in many areas of the Health Service. Secondly, there have been massive cuts in other areas of public expenditure, which increase the proportion of expenditure on the National Health Service without improving patient care where it matters.

Mrs. Currie: I am talking about current expenditure in the National Health Service in England. My figures come from the Library. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to do as I did and ask the Library to give him the objective figures for expenditure. In real terms, in cash terms and in the percentage of GDP, this Government have done a great deal better than the Government of the party to which he claims to belong.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say that I claim to belong to a political party when I have been a member of that party for 19 years and intend to remain so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have heard nothing that is out of order so far.

Mrs. Currie: We often hear silly comments from the Opposition, and perhaps one might comment—

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Lady should know all about silly comments.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of this debate. He is never here for other debates on the Health Service and social security matters. He might do better to listen to somebody who is.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to mouth inaccuracies? I have been here for most of this debate and I attend almost every debate on health and social services as a spokesperson for my union, the National Union of Public Employees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Inaccuracies seem to be part of the daily diet here, although I must say that the hon. Gentleman has been here for most of the time that I have occupied the Chair.

Mrs. Currie: Apart from the rather silly comments that we have heard during the past few minutes, may I draw attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday. He said that the real growth in the NHS that has been provided by the Government is not real growth because it has been swallowed up by demography and by the increased costs of equipment and of pay. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman—who has not graced us with his presence today at all—that no rules said that we had to provide the extra money for demography. No rules say—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: In a minute. Sit down.
There are no rules which say that any Government must provide extra money for extra pay, for increased prices or for demography. The fact is that this Government have and the previous Government did not.
I have also heard it said that the percentage of GDP spent on health care in other countries is higher than it is here. Indeed, so it is in countries that finance their health care either privately or through the insurance system. They have to count into their GDP on health care the costs of the people who send out bills and invoices, the people involved in credit control and the credit ratings of those who must pay for the service, and all the people who must chase up the poor souls who cannot pay. As long as we have a Health Service financed through taxation, the percentage of GDP is likely to be lower in this country. Long may it remain financed in that way. Does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wish to intervene now? No; he is busy writing his speech.
May I now turn to the specific topic of community care, in which I have a special interest, because there are eight hospitals in my constituency, of which seven are long-stay, dealing with mental illness, mental handicap and geriatrics.
It used to be the practice that Nottinghamshire dumped its long-stay patients in Derbyshire, particularly in south Derbyshire, and that Derbyshire dumped its long-stay patients in Nottinghamshire. I have a large number of constituents who are effectively rootless and completely cut off after many years in hospital from their communities. The regional health authorities plan to close most of those hospitals over the next 10 years and transfer the patients in one way or another to the communities around. All these hospitals have done excellent work over the past century. I single out Aston hall hospital and the Pastures hospital at Mickleover in Derby. Aston hall is blessed with £800,000 for a demonstration project to show the work that can be done with community care. It has got that money because it has a first-class record of moving

people with dignity and compassion into the community and having them accepted in that community. I am glad to see that.
I have no doubt whatever that the staff, with the co-operation of local people, can ensure a smooth transition to more normal life styles for many of those patients and, perhaps even more important, for potential patients who might otherwise be obliged to go in. The health authorities' activities therefore have my full blessing. I shall do everything that I can to help them. Governments for many years have made the Cinderella groups of the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, a top priority. At least, that is what they have said. In the case of the elderly, I suspect that such a declaration has been almost unnecessary because the growth in numbers alone and the needs of the elderly have meant that they take up the bulk of the services. In the National Health Service, for example, they use about half of all the acute beds. We should recognise that this Government have consistently accepted the demographic imperative—if I may put it like that — and have made resources available.
As for the mentally handicapped, their status has improved dramatically over recent years. My right hon. and learned Friend will remember the battle of Amesbury road in Moseley in which I tried to construct an adult training centre for the mentally handicapped within a stone's throw of his house. The objections came, not from my right hon. and learned Friend but from one of his neighbours who was a surgeon at a local hospital. We managed to shame the man into accepting it. It was some years ago.
Even in 1970, mentally handicapped children were regarded as ineducable. Now, they are found all over the country in little units attached to normal schools and they are doing very well. I believe that once they, their families and their neighbours are used to their being in the community, that is where those children will tend to stay. Once this generation of mentally handicapped hospital patients has gone through the hospitals, I doubt if we shall ever again fill up the hospitals by "putting such people away".
The specific problems that 1 think we face and have not solved are those of the mentally ill. Mental illness is not a nice topic. It is not an easy topic to discuss. The main reactions that one gets in this area of work are ignorance, apathy, prejudice and hostility. I became aware of this problem of acceptance when I was chairman of the central Birmingham health authority. I was obliged to close a ward in the Queen Elizabeth hospital. It was a psychiatric ward, and it was on the top floor of the hospital and our patients started throwing themselves out of it. We eventually reopened it as an out-patients' department.
The first question that I asked was, "Why on earth did we put an acute psychiatric ward on the top floor of the hospital block in the first place?" The answer was that the professor of psychiatry had a battle royal to get psychiatric patients regarded by his own colleagues as ill, treatable, curable and appropriately placed in the teaching hospital, and therefore, the fifth floor ward which no one else wanted was the only one available.
Most psychiatry in the United Kingdom—the Select Committee saw this on its visits—does not take place in teaching hospitals; it does not take place in acute hospitals; it is not glamorous; there are vacancies for staff


and very often the staff are untrained or undertrained. They are overworked, unsupported and unappreciated. That is a matter of fact.
What is missing is not so much resources. What is missing is not so much the Government commitment. What is missing is public understanding and the acceptance of mental illness. Just as the professor had no end of trouble persuading his colleagues in the medical profession to accept the presence of his patients in their hospital, so those of us who take an interest have a major task ahead of us persuading constituents and colleagues that the mentally ill are not different people to be segregated as if they have some disease that is catching. They are part of our community. Appropriate treatment, rehabilitation and research facilities are not an option but an absolute necessity.
Serving on the Select Committee on this topic was a depressing business in itself. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship presented us with many pages of evidence and I challenge anybody to read those case histories without feeling desperately sad. It is a heartbreaking business. The most noticeable feature of much of the evidence received was the anguish and bewilderment of many of the families, including families with the NHS in other contexts—such as those where the head of the household was a doctor — that there was no help available for such patients. They have found that, 40 years into the NHS, too often the attitude of public authorities consists of a mixture of stonewalling and buckpassing so that precious little progress can be made.
Mental illness is no respecter of persons. It is now just about three years since an hon. Member committed suicide. I hope that sufficient time has passed for us now to look at the matter a little objectively. Jocelyn Cadbury was my Member of Parliament. I was his senior councillor and twice running a member of the selection committee which invited him to fight the seat. I attended the inquest and we found that he had twice before tried to commit suicide. I do not think that it would have mattered very much if we had known because he had fought the illness successfully for 16 years and had no particular reason for feeling depressed. There was no reason, as far as we could discover, why he eventually succumbed.
I believe that, if Jocelyn Cadbury had suffered from a physical illness, he would readily have admitted it, sought help and expected to receive, and received, sympathy. Because it was a mental illness, he feared the stigma and was unable to ask for help in time.
We still have a desperately long way to go to change attitudes towards mental illness. The Government have shown themselves willing to face the expectations that we all put on the NHS. My right hon. and learned Friend has shown his capacity to follow public opinion and to lead it. I hope that he will take to heart the remarks of the Select Committee on this difficult area and continue his efforts to improve the care that we offer all of our people.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This is a timely and useful debate. I congratulate the Chair and membership of the Select Committee on producing a report which allows a debate such as this. Several of its observations are valuable and some of its recommendations should be taken up. As I am sponsored by the

National Union of Public Employees, which has many members in the Health Service and local government, I must observe that they will be at the sharp end of any programme of continuing closure of large psychiatric institutions and the transfer of resources to borough councils.
As I was a borough councillor in Haringey, I am well aware of the enormous pressure on resources on a borough council's social services budget and the difficulty of arguing for sufficient funding for the mentally ill. Although I welcome the idea behind the Select Committee report and the work that it has put into the subject, we must remember that community care as many members of the Select Committee envisage it is extremely expensive. I am not convinced that the Government are prepared to put in the necessary sums of money. Nor am I convinced that they are prepared to lift restrictions on borough or county council expenditure to enable them to make provision for the mentally ill. I am alarmed that the Government are proposing community care on the cheap. That would entail grave dangers of privatisation, private homes and all that goes with them.
Many Conservative Members hold up for praise the great virtues of the north American health service. They often quote the alleged efficiencies of health care in the United States. Many studies have been done of the process which is known as deinstitutionalisation in the United States. They have found that deinstitutionalising the mentally ill and putting them into privately run and privately owned institutions does not guarantee their safety, a cure or help, but means that somebody makes a great deal of money. The motive is different: not to look after people but to make money out of them. The American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organisation conducted a survey on private care for the mentally ill and the concept of self-regulation. Its report said that self-regulation was
inadequate, unworkable and unacceptable as a substitute for strict government enforcement of standards.
Although Conservative Members praise the American system as an example of the unfettered, free market economy, they should remember that there is another side to the coin.
There is severe understaffing in the institutions which provide care for those who are mentally ill or who need psychiatric care and insufficient resources are made available. Vast needs are not met by the large institutions. The Minister for Health should tell us how much money the Government are prepared to put into community care. Inadequate resources are being provided. Community care is far more expensive than institutional care, so much more money will be needed to enable a smooth transfer to community care. In 1979, the Jay committee reported that the number of staff working with the mentally handicapped needed to be more than doubled to 60,000. The Government have not responded to that recommendation and the number of places has decreased. Guidelines for local authority residential provision for the mentally ill suggest 0·33 places per 1,000 of the population. The present provision is one third of that number. Although the provision is increasing in some areas, there is still a long way to go.
Those who are physically or mentally handicapped are cared for not only by institutions, the social services and the National Health Service but by a large number of people who are forced to give up their jobs to look after


relatives who are ill. Although Conservative Members praise the concept of community care for relatives and neighbours, in many cases it forces women to give up promising careers. The reason is that inadequate funds are made available. The Labour party is determined that they should not be forced to give up their careers. It will ensure that adequate public resources are made available. I know many people whose careers have ended because they have had to look after mentally or physicall ill relatives. It is a very serious problem, and I am surprised that Conservative Members are smirking.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party would provide more resources for the care of the mentally and physically ill. How would it provide help for those people?

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly reasonable point. Financial remuneration could be provided for those who are forced to stay at home, and there could he more community nursing facilities and home helps. Nobody should be forced to give up a career simply because a relative is seriously ill. Nobody should be forced into financial hardship as a result.
There are many recommendations in the report. The principle of the financial atmosphere in which the report has been produced has to be examined. While some Conservative Members may choose as their bedtime reading Conservative Central Office or Department of Health and Social Security propaganda, the fact is that there is serious underfunding of the Health Service in general, serious underfunding of the social services and serious underpayment of many manual workers in the hospitals or social services departments.
The report refers to a serious problem in recommendation No. 55 — the relationship between the National Health Service and the local authorities. While the report is careful and specific in saying that there has to be a close relationship between the institutions in ensuring that community care is properly carried out and that individuals who are being looked after by the community are properly looked after and not put at risk, the report begs the question about the relationship between the Health Service and local government — with the democratic nature of local government and the essentially undemocratic and rather patronising nature of the Health Service structure.
In areas such as care for the mentally ill where there is a close overlap between the role of social services departments and that of the NHS, both institutions must be looked at again. I would favour bringing things closer to the local authority where there is a greater possibility of democratic control, or democratising the Health Service. The relationship between the two institutions must be brought closer together.
I should like to refer to several recommendations — [Interruption.] If Conservative Members cannot be bothered to listen, there are plenty of bars in the building that they can go to to continue their conversations.
The first recommendations to which I refer is where the report rightly refers to the high cost of community care. It states that it cannot be done on the cheap. If the Government pay lip service to the report, I hope that they will respect that recommendation and make the necessary financial provisions available.
The report also refers to individuals leaving mental institutions and making sure that an individual care plan

is available for such people so that they are not lost in society or some plethora of so-called community support, but are genuinely looked after individually. That is extremely important.
Another important point concerns the need for a central bridging fund to ensure that sufficient money is available for the cost of closing psychiatric hospitals and the increased cost to the local authorities. Another particularly important recommendation, which shows that a great deal of work has been put into it, concerns the design of buildings for the mentally ill and the need for consultation on it. As one who has been involved in examining building design in the past, I believe that far too often architects' ideas tend to run away with them, as do local authorities, ideas. They do not take into sufficient account the needs of the people who will have to use the buildings.
There are social security problems for the residents in psychiatric institutions or mental hospitals. I hope that the Department is prepared to examine that seriously. Many relatives of people in mental hospitals have come to see me, who have been concerned about the way in which benefit payments are made to patients in those institutions and their understanding of the benefit payments to which they are entitled and which are being paid to them.
Recommendation No. 90 is about the disposal of sites after the closure of mental hospitals. People in my constituency are concerned about that. The regional health authority is proposing to close Friern Barnet hospital, which is in the Prime Minister's constituency. The Select Committee suggests that before such an institution is closed and the land or the buildings sold it must be offered for the maximum use of the service for which it was built. Many people are sceptical about the motive for closure and sale. They believe a lot of it is asset stripping and that sufficient funds are not being made available to the local authorities to undertake the necessary care for the psychiatrically ill.
I should like to make some specific points about the effect and thrust of the policy proposals on London from the DHSS. Virtually every social services department in London has been told by the Government that it is about 30 per cent. over the grant-related expenditure allocation formula. It must, therefore, be fairly obvious that if those social services departments are to have far greater responsibility for the mentally ill, they will require more resources.
I hope that the Minister will say tonight whether the GREA formulas will be adjusted to take account of the needs of those people who are to be cared for by the community, or whether the same punitive measures will be taken against those social services departments as have already been taken against eight London authorities through the rate-capping proposals last year. The operation of the resource allocation working party formula on Health Service expenditure means there is a continuing and long-term outflow of resources from inner city areas. Those of us who represent inner city areas are acutely aware of that every day. We are aware of the long-term plans for the closure of many hospitals and of the centralisation of health facilities in individual boroughs or health authority areas. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there has to be a serious change of attitude on this matter.
In my constituency, Islington borough council, as part of the local authority partnership agreement, is in discussion with the regional health authority and the Government about developing care in the community, and


on the effects of the closure of the Friern Barnet institutions. At the present time, 300 Islington residents are patients at Friern Barnet. Of those, 100 are psychogeriatrics, 100 need medium to long-stay accommodation and 30 are acute psychiatric cases. The local authority has cut forward a detailed set of proposals on how those cases can be dealt with.
The real problem is whether there will be sufficient money available from the regional health authority to the local authority to meet the needs of those patients. It has not been made clear how much it will cost to care for a patient who is no longer in a mental institution but in some form of community institution. I know of no figures made available on this matter and, as I said earlier, the local authorities are still being penalised by the grant-related expenditure formula. The Government should come clean on this matter.
Many local authorities are in the same position as my own borough of Islington where a local institution is being closed. There will be an influx of mentally ill to that area, and enormous responsibility will fall on that social services department. If sufficient funds are not available, the effect will be further cuts in the social services received by other people or inadequate care for people leaving those mental institutions.
Many people are extremely worried and suspicious about the motives of the Government in promoting community care. They do not know whether it is to be a cost-cutting exercise or a genuine attempt to improve care for the mentally ill in our society. Exactly the same problem is faced by the neighbouring borough of Haringey where about 400 patients will be coming from Claybury Friern hospitals when they close. Exactly the same problems apply there about the operation of the GREA formula and the costings they have worked out for it.
Mental illness in society requires more discussion. A matter of importance that is completely missing from the report, which could perhaps be studied at further length by the Select Committee, is the causes of mental illness. Any cursory study will show that the incidence of mental illness is greater in areas of high stress, intense poverty and high unemployment, and if we return people to those communities we must be clear about what we are doing for them.
The growth in, and causes of, mental illness require serious research. It is not good enough simply to say, "We will do our best to look after the mentally ill." That is obviously the case, but we should also look at the causes of mental illness, its patterns and the possibilities of cure of the conditions and symptoms.
Many people who work in mental hospitals such as Friern Barnet and Claybury which are threatened with closure feel a sense of injustice and anger at what is happening. They have worked very hard for many years in those institutions often under-staffed and in very difficult conditions. They are doing jobs for which they are not paid enough, and quite often they have not received proper training because of the way in which those institutions have developed. Therefore, it does not seem fair that closure should be proposed when it is not clear what will happen to the staff. It is not clear what the staffing implications will be for the borough councils that will receive the patients from those hospitals, nor is it clear what will be the long-term future for those people.
We require from the Government sufficient funding to pay for genuine community care, not care on the cheap. We also require a public education programme so that people understand the causes of mental illness and have respect for those who suffer from it. The mentally ill should no longer be put at the back of the queue either in terms of resources within local authorities or resources within the Health Service. If that continues, the mentally ill will continue to be shoved to the back, as a result of which we forget about them and pretend that they do not exist, as has happened for far too long.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I feel as if I am bringing up the rear before the House listens to the replies from the Front Bench.
I was not a member of the Select Committee that produced this commendable report on community care. However, it has been interesting, informative and educational to listen to the debate and, as it were, to have flesh put on the report. After all, this was a unanimous report, and hon. Members have tonight given their own views on various aspects of it.
As I have said, I take an interest in health matters, but in this case I represent a Scottish constituency in which this is an important issue. The two hospitals there — Craig Phadrig and Craig Dunain — are greatly affected by the thrust of the policy which the Select Committee has been examining.
The debate has been notable for its lack of partisan flavour, with the exception of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who in characteristic rumbustious fashion gave a spirited party political defence of the Government's spending programme and disciplines in relation to the Health Service. She seemed to antagonise several hon. Members in a quiet way, but I could not help but feel that with the recess approching we are about to implement our own form of care in the community. We are going to shut down this central institution and move Members round about the country back into the community. Perhaps the old adage is true that MPs are more effective and less like manure when they are not all piled up together in an odious group but when they are spread round the country and there is a chance that they might do some good.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am sorry if I hurt the hon. Member's feelings by being critical of his party leader in his previous incarnation as Labour Minister of Health. I merely wish to put on record one or two facts. Would the hon. Gentleman admit, having heard me speak many times in social services debates, that I can be exceedingly critical of the Government when I feel like it?

Mr. Kennedy: If so, it is in exceedingly coded terms. It is usually well padded by glowing remarks about the Minister, his spending record and his general demeanour. In fact, everything he is going is good, but.
We are getting off the subject, but on the point about spending, it is interesting to look at the figures when my right hon. Friend was Minister for Health. During that time the NHS had the largest ever sustained, in real terms, growth pattern.

Mr. Frank Dobson: He was a filthy Socialist.

Mr. Kennedy: I think he was practising some of the principles which still guide him in politics today. It has been agreed all round that the basic issue of concern is that of funding. It will come as no surprise to the Minister, speaking in the luxury of the Opposition Benches, when he hears me say that I am firmly in favour of more funding for community care.
There are some fairly cruel contradictions or some dilemmas for local authorities in this policy. They have been encouraged to enter into joint funding agreements. They now find that, because of another arm of Government policy, namely, rate capping, they are faced with the dilemma of perhaps having to maintain the statutory financial obligations, particularly as the taper effects begin to move the burden for joint funded projects away from central Government and back to the local authority. As they have to consider how they meet the challenges or the obligations, it is likely that they will fall foul of Government policies in other sectors.
I think the Minister, being reasonable, would agree that dilemmas are presented for health authorities and local authorities. The point made by several speakers on bridging finance is particularly pertinent in that context. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) quoted the Minister as saying that if some hospital facility has been greatly under funded and the function is transferred to community care the cost will go up. That is without doubt the case. There is no doubt that bridging finance and real pump priming are extremely important and additional pump priming is also important to make this whole shift in the balance and in the nature of care more effective and less crippling financially to local authorities than it has been or will yet be.
I should like to move to the role and position of the support services within the community. One of the commendable features about the report is the scope and the breadth with which it adopts its examination of the subject matter. There are two areas of particular concern. I mentioned the hospitals in my own constituency, but I am sure this applies to every Member who is in the Chamber. One is housing and one is transport. The Committee has done a good job in pointing to the need for more housing. It is right to look to the housing associations in particular as leading the way in the development of more housing geared specifically, certainly sympathetically, towards the needs of those with various forms of disability or handicap. That is welcome, and will obviously feed in well to a care in the community programme.
Some of us in the alliance have been spending a considerable amount of time in Wales recently. It made me laugh to hear everybody say what a big constituency Brecon and Radnor is. It is about 1,000 sq miles, whereas my constituency is 2,000 sq miles and involves several islands as well as the coast-to-coast mainland in the north of Scotland. Therefore, transport is close to our hearts. I was glad to see that the committee spent some time concentrating on transport. It said:
Desperately little attention would seem to have been paid to the effects on transport services of community care policies.
Everything should be done to examine that problem, particularly in the rural areas with scatttered populations. With the exception of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland, I could claim the constituency with the most scattered population. Not only is public transport essential

in such areas, but the car is not a luxury but a necessity as well. Anything that can be done to focus on transport and its place in the community care policy is welcome.
The report is extremely interesting and points the way to the future when it recommends that
voluntary bodies be approached with the idea of piloting service-contracting.
That is just one aspect. There is an immense potential for the voluntary sector to be harnessed still more. I appreciate the anxieties of the hon Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). That need not mean that one is trying to offload on to the voluntary sector, much of whose work is unrecognised and unsupported, what should be the rightful duty of the state or the local authority. However, voluntary bodies have an enormous amount of good will and ability, and can make a big contribution to the community, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made clear from his local example. The voluntary sector could and should be more involved.
Sometimes, the various statutory and professional groups tend to approach the so-called Cinderella services somewhat hesitantly. They do not wish to involve voluntary bodies too much because it might lead to additional difficulties. I appreciate that there may be problems with professionalism, but much more can be done.
If I am lucky, I may learn, more about the role of the voluntary and informal carer at Social Services questions next Tuesday. Assuming that the supplementary questions are somewhat shorter than the speeches that have been made tonight, we may reach try question. I shall be asking the Secretary of State whether he has any intention of introducing a specific carer's benefit which, if it were introduced, would go a long way to overcoming the problems that we have been discussing.
More can be done to encourage the local benefits office, the local housing office, the local social services departments and the local health authority to try to come together. This does not necessarily involve extra finance. We should try to provide some help for the person caring for the lady next door or the young couple keeping an eye on the mother-in-law or the elderly or dependent parent, uncle aunt or whatever. They should have a central point of access from which they can get more information about how they tap what is often the mystifying range of benefits that should be available to them but which they do not pick up. It could also tell them how some of the services, both statutory and voluntary, can be delivered in a more organised, cost-effective and professional way. Money could even be saved.
The report is generally welcome. I learnt a great deal from it and from tonight's debate. We can only hope that, after the publication of the report and tonight's debate, these ideas will circulate further, and stimulate more discussion and response. Whatever our differences in degree or on policy issues, we would all agree that this sector will become increasingly important as we go into the next century. I congratulate the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister's speech.

Mr. Frank Dobson: It is normal to pay tribute to those who served on the Select Committee, and in particular to the Chairman of that Committee. Sometimes the compliments are nominal, but hon. Members throughout the House will agree that my


hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) has made a significant contribution over the years to the development of decent policies for health, social services and social security. The report is yet another of her contributions, and we look forward to many more.
We must pay tribute those who work in the old-fashioned, clapped-out, long-stay hospitals. They are usually overworked, underpaid, unappreciated and frequently unrecognised. Any criticism of those institutions is levelled, not at them, but at society in general, because we have allowed those institutions to fall into disrepair. We have not provided sufficient funds for the encouragement necessary for those workers to do their job properly. A major characteristic of the old institutions is that the people working in them are frequently out of sight and out of mind. That suits society. Most people agree that properly funded and organised care in the community is better for most people than care provided by the old institutions. Subject to a number of reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and others, we all look forward to the day when most people are cared for outside institutions.
Before we can care properly in the community, we must ask why people were first cared for in the old institutions. We have all been shocked by spectacular mistakes. Some people should never have been housed in institutions, but once they were there they were not allowed out. Primarily, people were put in long-stay institutions because they could not cope outside on their own or because those who tried to look after them could not cope. Any change in the arrangements for people in those institutions must ensure that they can cope outside and that the people looking after them can cope with the problems. If we proceed willy nilly to move people out of the old institutions, those involved will not be able to cope. The danger is that we shall empty the old institutions and do nothing more. That will not be satisfactory.
To be realistic, we must accept that there is no evidence that "the community" cares. It has never cared much about people in institutions. We must ensure caring for the future, but that will not just happen. We must create the machinery. People living in the community now — people who are vaguely living and vaguely in the community — are not being cared for. For example, we do not know how many homeless people live in London. Estimates vary from 5,000 to 20,000. At least several thousand people are homeless in London. Many of them have medical problems. Many are addicts of one sort or another. Many suffer from physical or mental illnesses. "The community" has left them to doss down wherever they can, leaving the police to move them on, when they want only to settle down for the night. If the Government and society want to prove that they have the capacity to provide care in the community for people who are at present in institutions, the best way to carry conviction is to do something about the people who are not being looked after properly in the community now.
To cater for those concerned we shall have to provide many smaller units, some of which will have to give the full-time care — 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year — which the old institutions have provided, but in a smaller and better environment. We shall need better places where people can go for shorter stays. We must make provision

for day care and outpatient care. There will have to be a massive increase in domiciliary visiting, with improvements in primary care of all kinds. From most available evidence, it is clear that we shall have to provide much more training for general practitioners in mental health and mental handicap, which is not their forte at present. We shall need a vast structure of support for families, neighbours and friends, by whom a large part of the burden of community care will be carried.
In my view, a warm-hearted instinct has produced the revolution in thinking about the problems of the mentally handicapped and mentally but we must be practical and ask whether the resources to sustain the development of a high standard of care in the community are being provided. From an examination of the present position, or from a reading of the Select Committee's report, the answer is that the resources are not being made available to make care in the community work as well as it should.
Almost everybody agrees that the old institutions should go and that we need new units, but there is not much evidence that they are now being built on a sufficient scale. There is little evidence that sufficient additional day care units are being provided in places convenient to people living in the community. There has been some improvement in outpatient psychiatric treatment, but much remains to be done on that front, and we need much more training for doctors and others. I could give a litany of requirements, but if I did the answer would probably be, "No," "Not very much," "Not likely" or "Not on your life." We must change that situation.
In view of the resources that are being provided, it seems that the Government have not appreciated the scale on which they will be needed. In a speech to the Richmond Fellowship in July last year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in my prescence, said:
It may be the case that care in the community will be more expensive than care in the large institutions.
There is no question but that it will be more expensive if good quality care is to be provided. The old institutions are being phased out because they do not provide care to a high enough standard. If we provide care to a higher standard, wherever we provide it, it is bound to cost more.
The old institutions provide bulk care, and the best parallel of which I can think is an old motor coach. It carries large numbers of people, it has not had enough spent on it over the years and it needs to be replaced. The only alternative that would be cheaper than the old, clapped-out motor coach would be for everybody to get out and walk, because no alternative provision has been made. If the old coach is replaced by small or individual forms of transport, that will cost more in total than squeezing everybody into the big old coach. So it is with new provision that will need to be made for care in the community. If we are talking in terms of individualised, tailor-made care for everybody who comes out, that is bound to be more expensive than the old institutions.
I find it difficult to obtain evidence that the additional resources will be provided. On 8 December 1983 I asked the Secretary of State for his estimate
for the current year and each of the next two years of the increased costs to local authorities of providing care in the community for people spending less time in acute hospital beds, the closure of convalescent homes, and homes for the elderly, the mentally-sick, the mentally-handicapped and disabled persons.


The Under-Secretary of State replied at some length, ending with the following:
the information needed to make the requested estimates is not available centrally." — [Official Report, 8 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 233–34.]
I asked a further question on roughly the same lines on 16 July 1984. The question was directed to the number of people involved, and not finance. Again, the Department did not have estimates of the number likely to be moved out. In October 1984 I asked the Secretary of State what increase in joint finance allocations to certain London health districts he estimated would be required to promote the closure of old long-stay institutions and the development of community care. The Under-Secretary replied:
No such estimates have been made centrally."—[Official Report, 23 October 1984; Vol. 65, c.573.]
As I understand the British system of government, it is not possible to get money from the Treasury unless Estimates are produced. A Government who are not producing Estimates on the cost of community care are clearly not seriously into the business of getting the necessary funding. Underfunding will have two effects. First, it will bring the concept of care in the community into disrepute. Much worse than that,if community care is practised on the cheap, there will be disaster for those who need the care and also for the unofficial, unpaid carers —in other words, family, friends and neighbours—who take on the great burden of looking after those who come out of the institutions. We all know that the bulk of the burden will be borne by women. Unless we make adequate provision, a great burden will fall on many women who are not equipped to carry out that task of caring. Being born a woman does not necessarily provide the full equipment to look after a member of the family who is physically or mentally sick, despite our traditions.
Even if the additional resources are provided, many women will carry out the task because women have always done so in the past. I suspect that everyone present in the Chamber knows families where an amazing amount of love — there is no other word for it — is poured into looking after a mentally ill, mentally handicapped or physically ill relative. When I come across that in my constituency, I feel humble. That is my feeling when I come into contact with families who treasure one of their number in that way. It can be a terrible burden, and it is our duty in planning care in the community to ensure that the community does not consist of one family or even one person. Genuine care in the community means us all getting together and sustaining the carers as well as the cared for.
Members of the Select Committee will know that one of the greatest reliefs for a family that is caring for one of its number is respite care, when the person being cared for can go into a hospital while the rest of the family have a holiday. I am not saying that I have come across an example of that respite provision being withdrawn for the mentally handicapped or the mentally ill, but within my constituency I have encountered examples of the withdrawal of respite care for the physically handicapped because Stoke Mandeville hospital, which had formerly provided respite care, could no longer afford to do so.
Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide for the mentally ill, but they are allowed to make their own assessment of the level of need. The latest figures that I have been able to find show that, of the 32 London

boroughs, seven provide no special accommodation and seven others provide no day care places for the mentally ill. They cannot claim that there is no need, because nearly all 14 place people in facilities which are provided either by other boroughs or by voluntary organisations. Even in what the Minister regards as relatively well resourced London, local authority provision is lacking.
The problems are shown by the figures on after-care for patients discharged from mental hospitals. I have not been able to obtain any national figures, but the latest figures for Greater London show that only 3 per cent. of the people discharged into inner London had definite arrangements made with their local social services to provide some care for them when they came out of hospital. That is a staggeringly low figure, yet these are the very local authorities which have been rate capped, which have already lost a gigantic amount of rate support grant and which can expect to lose even more when the arrangements are announced next week.
The Government will claim—I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will back them — that spending on social services has risen by more than 12 per cent. in real terms during the Conservative party's term in office. By subtracting the increases in spending which have been made by those councils which the Government vilify as prolifigate overspenders, we can see that there has been practically no increase. Many local authorities have scarcely increased their spending.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to the relationship between poverty, a poor environment and the incidence of mental ill health and mental handicap. I think that every one accepts that there are social, class and income relationships. That means that, as the big old institutions are closed down, people will be discharged to the poorest parts of Britain, especially to our big cities. On the whole, the health authorities most likely to be affected by the discharges are those which, under the changes of the past few years which were so proudly introduced by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), lost most funds and suffered most cuts. The four Thames authorities which serve Greater London are the most significant.
In October 1984 I asked the Secretary of State whether
the resource allocation working party formula for capital allocations reflected the cost of replacing large long-stay institutions in outer London as part of the move to community care.
The Minister replied:
No. The RAWP formula does not specifically take account of the cost of replacing obsolete buildings."—[Official Report, 23 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 572–73.]
In other words, this magic formula which certain people think is so fine does not make any allowance for the need for inner London health authorities to provide new buildings to replace the old institutions in which the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and old are housed. I suspect that the effect is similar in other large cities.
Successive Governments have failed to find the resources necessary to bring about care in the community. "Care in the community" has a potent political appeal. It breaks down the concentration of care, as represented by the hospitals, and redistributes it over a much wider area. This redistribution does not solve the problem, but from the Treasury's point of view it has inestimable value in that it makes the problem harder to identify and consequently easier to ignore. One reason why the Government are so


keen to mouth phrases about care in the community is that it allows them to adopt an attitude of "Out of the NHS accounts and out of mind". It is more difficult to identify the amount being spent in the regions through agencies, local authorities and voluntary organisations, than it is to make a simple check on the spending figures of a centraliesed National Health Service.
The old institutions will be with us for some time, even those that are gradually being emptied. One of our duties is to remain aware of how these institutions are functioning. It is generally accepted that institutions which are being run down find it extremely difficult to provide even their previous standard of service. There is a fall in morale among the staff and an awareness of the running down, which makes things difficult. We must ensure that the people still in the institutions do not suffer even more than they did in the past as a result of the run down.
I have written to every district health authority about attitudes to privatisation and the contracting out of ancillary services. The most significant response was anxiety that privatisation might spell danger for people in long-stay institutions. Many of the district health authorities replied that the domestic staff, especially in long-stay institutions make an essential contribution to life in the wards. They are able to spend time with patients and get to know them. They become familiar with the patients and the patients familiar with them. They will make cups of tea in their spare time and help old men fasten their flies when they come back from the lavatory. That is a contribution towards humanising the wards.
The health authorities are aware of the danger that once the clipboard and stopwatch approach is applied to domestic services on the wards that high standard of care will either disappear or nurses presently occupied with other duties will have to provide it. If that happens, more nurses will have to be appointed or some of the existing functions will not be carried out.
The Opposition strongly support the idea of care in the community, but we do not believe that any of the big old hospitals should be closed before people in the hospital and in the area that it serves and those who wish to provide care in the neighbourhood are satisfied that satisfactory alternative provision has been established. My experience suggests—this applies not just to mentally handicapped people—that some of the people who have been moved out of the big old lodging houses into homes of their own or group flats have suffered in the process because insufficient provision was made in advance to support them during that transition.

Mr. Corbyn: As there is declining provision of acute hospital beds in inner and city areas, and a great demand for geriatric, psychogeriatric and psychiatric provision, the long-term problem is often longer waiting lists of people trying to get acute beds because there is insufficient overall provision.

Mr. Dobson: I accept that, although I suspect that the Minister will not agree, and I shall deal with that aspect in a moment.
We should accept that the disappearance of the old institutions in any geographical area must not take place unless we are satisfied that adequate provision has been made in advance for those to be transferred. The important point is that it should be made in advance. If people are

not caught by proper after-care arrangements from the moment they leave the old institutions, they will be lost to the system and will never by retrieved. It will be almost impossible to track them down and many people will actually die as a result of being moved out of the old institutions. For those who have been in institutions for a long time, the trauma of coming out will be the worst part of the process and we must look after them very carefully during the transitional period.
Many genuine mistakes are also likely to occur during the transitional period. It is vital that the people organising these things do not take an ideological view about moving people from one part of the spectrum of care to the next. They should not regard themselves as having failed if the part of the spectrum which they most favour turns out to be unsuitable for some of the people for whom it has been provided. Everyone involved must keep an open mind, or we may end up expecting some people to function in facilities which are still too institutional for them, while demanding that others survive in a non-institutional climate with which they cannot cope. If the Victorians did not have the moral right to put everyone in big institutions, no more have we the moral right to put people in any particular part of the new spectrum of arrangements if it does not suit their needs.
I do not believe that proper care for the people moved out into the community can or will be provided by people making money out of it. That has been one of the major thrusts of the Government's policy on care in the community, but we do not believe that the standards laid down are adequate or that health authorities have the resources or the will to do the necessary monitoring. When, predictably enough, the profiteering became too obvious even for the present Government, their response was not to step up control of standards and to distinguish between good and bad providers, but to introduce new lower limits on DHSS support, which has hit high quality voluntary and charitable provision as well as the profiteers who were allegedly the target.
In view of the time, I shall not take up any more of the points raised in the debate. I make just one final point, which no doubt will not commend itself to the Conservatives. I do not believe that care in the community can really work in a society based on he stressful and competitive philosophy of the modern Tory party. The Government believe that the engine of society is selfishness and competition, that life is a race in which the prizes not ony do but should go to the strongest, the fastest, the cleaverest and the most aggressive. That view is ultimately irreconcilable with the idea of looking after the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill.
The Victorians, who, as we all know, subscribed to the values which the Prime Minister claims to like, resolved the dilemma by taking the mentally and physically handicapped out of the race altogether and putting them in large institutions, partly to cocoon them from the struggle. People with handicaps cannot be cocooned in the same way in the community if the community is based on competition. Besides the requirements for proper care in the community which have been outlined by hon. Members on both sides of the House, there is one overwhelming requirement — to base our society on a recognition of our mutual dependence and our obligations one to another. That is not the Government's philosophy, but without that philosophy characterising our entire society, care in the community will never prosper.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was his usual quiet and attentive self for most of the debate, but he perked up a little and his beard began to bristle when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) began to inject some of the red meat of partisan politics into the debate. When he replied, he carried with me for most of the time as he made a reasoned and considered speech, but he ended with one of his slightly over-the-top pieces of party philosophy, which took him a little away from the subject.
I wish to begin — I hope that I shall end in more or less the same mood — by agreeing with as many of the hon. Gentleman's sentiments as I can. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and all the members of the Select Committee on the work that they put into producing this report. I agree with most of those who have spoken in the debate, including the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, that we should support the policy of care in the community, which the Select Committee report carefully defines, to make sure that we do not start using it as a slogan. I am especially glad that the Select Committee members managed to secure a debate on the report, so that we have had a protracted discussion on an extremely important subject. I have come to believe that this is an extremely important part of current health policy. It is also the part of health policy that is least understood by many members of the public, and it still arouses much unnecessary' controversy when authorities attempt to put it into practice.
When I became Minister for Health, I knew a fair amount about the care in the community policy, but I had little direct experience of the problems of putting it into practice. When I came to my present job, I shared some of the public's scepticism about some of the things that had happened in the past. I was certainly sceptical about some of the consequences of the so-called upgrading of mental hospitals which began more than a decade ago, which led to patients being turned onto the streets, because they were described as non-treatable, to reduce the numbers in the wards. Not long ago, I visited a Salvation Army hostel where the people there told me that they remembered ambulances corning up outside the hostel and turning out patients who had just been declared to be non-treatable by a psychiatrist at a nearby large mental hospital.
I knew when I started, and still know, that mistakes can be made. I know that people discharged from hospital can lose touch with the services that are meant to support them and can fall sometimes into sad and unpleasant conditions. I always have a fear that we should not add to the population living under the railway arches at Charing Cross and elsewhere by finding that, accidentally, we put discharged mental patients into that position.
However, having said that, and being aware of all those problems, I must say that, after only three and a half years in the job, I have become an enthusiast for the policy which underlies this changeover to care in the community. That is because I have seen good examples of what is happening as health authorities tackle the changeover that is required.
For instance, I have seen the enthusiasm, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) said, with which the leaders of the health authorities and the local

authorities in that part of the country are making the change, and how they are collaborating to achieve it. My hon. Friend praised his health authority, and most hon. Members who have visited Exeter will agree with him that it has done much in this area. In other parts of the country, I have made a point of trying to see care in the community policies and have asked health authorities to show me what they have achieved. I have met patients of all ages and the staff who care for them, and I have heard first-hand descriptions of improvements in the quality of patients' lives that are being achieved now. I do not wish to generalise too much from the examples of individuals whom I have met, but I shall cite two which relate to long-stay patients who might be thought difficult to transfer out of an institution. In Eastbourne, I met a mentally handicapped man who I should say was in his 60s. He had spent 40 years in a nearby hospital for the mentally handicapped. For about 30 years of that time he had been mute and a disruptive patient — not seriously, but setting off fire alarms and fire appliances in the hospital. I met him in a converted couple of houses where he lived. He talked pleasantly in a relaxed way. He described his life in Eastbourne and was plainly enjoying it. He was clearly not highly intelligent, because he was mentally handicapped. He was able to talk and was enjoying a much fuller life than he had for all those years in his hospital.
In Derby I met a man who had been diagnosed as mentally ill. He had spent 40 years in a nearby large mental hospital. I met him living in a converted terrace house with a great deal of close support from the local social services department and the housing association which had provided the housing. He was slightly reticent, but he was not an unusual man. If I had met him outside the house I should never have realised that he had been a patient in a mental hospital. The only curious thing about his conversation was that his recollections of Derby all revolved around the second world war when he had worked making aircraft engines in the nearby Rolls-Royce factory. He had plainly been cut off from ordinary life in Derby from the second world war until a year previously, when he had gone into that new accommodation. I mention those cases, firstly, because it is always encouraging to meet such improvements being achieved in patients' lives, and, secondly, because they led me to the conclusion to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) came. I agree with him that one goes to one part of the country and finds that there are many patients whose transfer into the community is regarded as impossible and yet one goes to the next place and finds that that has been achieved successfully.
There is plainly no way in which we can discharge all the acute mentally ill patients into the community, but with mentally handicapped patients the position is rather different. I do not see a future for large ward and large hospital care for them at all. A great deal can be achieved. It is easy to exaggerate the difficulties of moving long-stay patients into the community.
I do not just have the experience of this country. I attended a meeting recently of Ministers of Health from all the countries in the Council of Europe. I heard them all agree that a community-based model of care should replace an institution-based model. All those countries were adopting policies similar to ours. I am glad to say that in such an international gathering the United Kingdom is seen as something of a pioneer. That relates not just to this Government but previous Governments. We were also.
regarded as having avoided so far some of the worst dangers of going too fast in an ill-considered way, as I fear has happened in Italy, or scarcely moving at all, as appears to be the case in Greece.
Despite the mistakes and the difficulties, by and large the process of change has been reasonably well managed here.
It is rather unfortunate that the Select Committee went to the United States and that it cites the United States and Italy as the international comparisons because—with no disrespect to the general health care in those countries—they are widely regarded as two of the poorest examples, with especially unfortunate mistakes having been made in Italy. I do not think they resemble anything that has happened here.
We should realise that we are achieving a great deal and that we are in line with international practice. I hope that the few hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who say that many people suspect that the change is just part of saving money, realise that they are out of step with the majority of Members of the House who realise that our objectives are shared by the vast majority of those genuinely interested in the mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients.
We must restate the aims of the policy to a sceptical public. We ought all to agree about the need to change from an old-fashioned and unsatisfactory pattern of care in which most of the patients were unwilling long-stay patients in large wards in large hospitals. We must replace that with better, more civilised and humane care for patients that keeps them in closer touch with the community and allows them to live in their own homes or near centres of population.
We need smaller units of all kinds, including small hospital units, with nursing staff trained in community skills. We need sheltered housing with resident staff. We need day services and domiciliary help for family carers, to whom the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) paid tribute, and for those patients who are capable of self-sufficiency in their own homes.
In my visits around the country, I have seen remarkable cases of severely disabled people living alone in their own house or living in twos or threes. With the right support, people who the average layman would think could not possibly cope are living in their own homes. That is the objective of the policy. It ought not to be controversial.
I cannot emphasise too often that the Government are not changing the pattern of care to make cuts or to save money. That is not our objective and it would be a mistake for anyone to think that it is a credible objective. We are shifting resources with the patients. We will have to retrain and prepare staff. Sometimes it will cost more on balance and sometimes it will cost less.
I quite agree that, in changing to a more modern and humane pattern of care, we must concentrate on the needs of patients. Each patient will require individual assessment of needs. The transition for each patient, as well as for whole blocks of the service, will require careful joint planning, joint approaches from health and local authorities and co-operation between all the health care professions. It is a pity that, in just one or two speeches today, hints of rivalry between the professions began to creep in. There were suggestions about which authority

might dominate in the provision of care and which unions or professions might get the bulk of the staff and provide care.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye that it is important to take advantage of voluntary bodies and what they can contribute. Care must be provided by those who are best able to provide it. That might be the health authority, the local authority or a well-run voluntary body. We must not discriminate between the three, but decide in patients' interests which of those bodies will get the finance and deliver the service.
Our aim is to improve the quality of life of the patients in our care. We want to improve their environment. We must put them in a less frustrating setting than large wards, give them more stimulus and less boredom, protect them and retain the best elements of the word "asylum". That policy has the backing, as I am sure the Select Committee found, of most of the leading interested voluntary bodies.
MENCAP and MIND — the largest bodies with an interest in mental handicap and mental illness respectively — are fully committed to this approach. I try to keep in touch with both as frequently as possible. The only criticisms that I get from them are that we are not going fast enough. They also always argue about finance. The Select Committee report endorses that policy and praises what has been achieved in some places.
I must say, however, that I find the report a little like the curate's egg. Although I welcome its support for its less institutionalised approach, if I am allowed to criticise the members of the Committee, who have fairly criticised the Government in various ways, I must say that the report lays heavy emphasis on the difficulties, having described its support for the policy. The report shows signs of having been influenced by many complaints, and on one or two occasions it proposes some curious arrangements. The Select Committee has paid far too much attention to those who say that it cannot happen until larger additional resources are made available to a particular witness's department in his locality.
The report acknowledges that sometimes excuses are made, but in each locality community care has got to be made to work, sometimes against the grain of local prejudices and by changing local practices, within realistic expectations of resources. The state priorities of the local authorities and the regional health authorities match those of the Government and of successive Governments on health care and social policy. Those priorities are the former so-called Cinderella services for the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.
One should find that, when increased resources are made available, generally they go to the priority areas. One is considering the activities of statutory bodies whose spending has increased briskly during the last six years. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South reminded us of the figures. The spending of those authorities which provide hospital and community health services has increased by 15 per cent. over and above the general level of inflation during the last five years, and the spending of the social services committees of local authorities has increased by 17 per cent. over and above the general level of inflation in the same period. As they are spending so much money, they should pay more than lip service to the priority services. That is where the bulk of the money should be going. We give growth money to the health authorities to enable them to make changes in practice and meet rising demand.
Whenever a debate is held either about finance or about policy in the National Health Service, the Government are able to point to the vastly increased amounts of money that are given generally to the authorities, which we leave them to disburse, and to the policy priorities. The debate is then turned round on the Government. We are asked: if those are the priorities, where is the extra money? The point of providing more money for the coffers of the health authorities is to enable them to improve their services in the stated priority areas.
Given that we are not devoid of resources for this priority area, one looks at the pace of change, upon which the report placed much more emphasis than any of the speeches to which we have listened today. The Select Committee's report urges a substantial slow down in the pace of change. It suggests that any idiot could close a large hospital. If so, during the last few decades we have been rather short of successful idiots. No authority has ever succeeded in carrying out its stated intention of closing a large hospital. This is not a new idea, anyway. The report refers to the 1962 hospital plan when the Minister of Health became quite lyrical about the need to close down large numbers of mental hospitals. Twenty-three years later, not a single large mental hospital has been closed. Therefore, I cannot agree with the emphasis that the Select Committee has placed upon the Government avoiding undue haste.
Although the aim of the policy is not to close hospitals — that in itself is a pointless aim — nevertheless it is worth considering whether we can replace some of these institutions with something better. Most regions have one or two hospitals that they ought to have closed many years ago. I fear that some of them are a disgrace to a modern, civilised country. They are very old, and since the hospital plan was published they have become older, more expensive and emptier. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) described his experiences of visiting some of our larger mental hospitals. I have been as moved as he was by some of the conditions that one sees there. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras described some of them as clapped out. Some are dank, inhospitable dumps as buildings. I agree that the amazing thing is that the quality of care has been raised so much by the dedication of all the staff wo have to work in those inhospitable surroundings. I join the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in paying tribute to the staff who have done so.
One has to ask: why have many of those hospitals, long earmarked for closure, never closed? One of the main problems is the difficulty of planning the replacement services and making sure that thy are there for the patients to move out. There have been other reasons as well. We all know that there have been if we have local experience of trying to plan that change. Once the closure of a large hospital is proposed it is usual to encounter resistance to that proposal from friends of the patients and the staff. Friends and relatives tend to fear any change from a setting that they may think is not attractive, but where the problems of the patient appear to be relieved to some extent.
Whatever the Confederation of Health Service Employees say nationally — it is in favour of the policy generally — locally, trade union leaders and large numbers of the staff tend to resist the loss of jobs. The local population often receive an inadequate expiation of what is likely to replace the hospital, so they are induced

to campaign against the closure, which is presented to them by the National Union of Public Employees or other unions as all part of a policy of health cuts. That slows down the changes and adds to the difficulty of making them.
No doubt the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has joined us, if we ever succeeded in closing the large mental hospitals, would add the lost beds to the ludicrous figures that he produces to try to show that bed closures are a measure of the state of the Health Service. That all underlines the difficulties that are faced in practice in closing large hospitals. I have my own experience. Saxondale hospital was cited by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. It was first mooted for closure when the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was the Minister responsible for health. We still have not got round to it. Most local people will believe it when it happens and will accept it once they are satisfied that better services will replace the hospital.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Minister accept that during our inquiry we did not have representations from any hospital union, from either individual workers or groups that we met, complaining about the possible loss of jobs if large mental institutions were closed? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put that out of his argument? We said in our report that after the closure of the large institutions staff would be deployed, working with smaller groups of patients in different circumstances and different settings, but the jobs would still be there.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. It is the same point that I made. I have encountered leaflets issued by local union branches trying to organise resistance to a closure on the grounds of resisting health cuts and saving jobs. I accept that the hon. Lady may not have encountered that, but I have done so, not least in my part of the country.
We therefore have decided to set early dates — we have already set some — for the closure of those redundant hospitals. The reason for setting dates is that that will provoke the start of the serious planning process, and where that process is well advanced, it will concentrate people's minds on maintaining a set timetable in implementing it. Provoking the planning process sets in train a difficult series of measures that the authorities have to handle if mistakes are not to be made or kept to a minimum. Those involved need to explain to relatives that by the date set better care will be provided. They need to explain to the staff the retraining that they will require and their future in the system, as the hon. Lady said. They need to explain to the local population the type of patients who will move into the community and avoid planning rows and unreasonable fears. I am tempted to defend my neighbours against the attack of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South; but I am glad to say that there were no objections in the part of the world that she described. Objections can be avoided if the nature of the movement into the community that is taking place is explained to the population.
We must provide better services outside before anyone is transferred. Everyone is agreed upon that. Every patient must be individually assessed and moved to a setting that suits his or her personal situation. That is an extremely difficult process, but it is important for the Government to keep up the pressure to make sure that people concentrate


their minds on it and accept it is going to be necessary to do those things, because the large hospital is finally going to be closed. I do not regret the pressure we are putting on to make everything proceed.
Not all hospital care will be replaced. Many of those suffering from mental illness will need some hospital care. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), who said that there is a slight danger, if one is not careful, that people will concentrate on community care, which is easily arranged for the mildly neurotic, and forget that the first call upon the hospital service must be, in the case of mental illness, to care for the seriously disturbed and acutely ill patient. From time to time schizophrenics certainly may need hospital care.
For the future, the small local unit on the district general hospital site is the best model. A few months ago I attended the opening — not the formal opening, but very nearly the actual opening — of one in the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham. There I met staff members who were extremely enthusiastic about what they were going to do, and they were nurses transferring from Saxondale. they could see they were moving into a better hospital environment. We also need hospital hostels; small homely units.
We must guard against hospital units being provided which are merely transferring patients from one hospital institution to another. It I had time, I would answer the complaints made about Oxford. I will go away and find out again about the situation in Barnsley about which I have heard complaints before, and try to make sure that hospital authorities are not going to reproduce institutions.
These things are going on at the moment. It is good practice and it is working up and down the country. It is being assessed and spread by the Health Advisory Service, Good Practice in Mental Health, the National Development Team for Mentally Handicapped People, and Kent Community Care Project Assessments. Those are various groups which know an great deal about what has been achieved already and are disseminating good ideas to those who are getting started.
Having tried to persuade all those who have spoken, except for the hon. Member for Islington, North, who insisted on carping about community care, that the objectives are common objectives, I will turn to the matter of finance, because the other message for the Select Committee is that we will support this policy with more enthusiasm so long as we are satisfied that the finance is going to be there to provide better services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said that he did not believe this was going to be a cost-neutral policy. I am not sure why it is believed that cost-neutral is really the basis upon which the change is being made. In our detailed evidence to the Social Services Committee on Public Expenditure, we showed that expenditure has increased in real terms on the mental illness and mental handicap services. Spending by health and local authorities on these services rose by 19 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1983–84. Unit costs have risen more substantially, and in this area I accept that unit costs can be taken as reflecting rising standards where previously one had low-cost hospital facilities.
The figures now no longer reflect the total resources employed in the care of these groups because they are going over increasingly to general community health

services expenditure and the amount going on mental illness and mental health cannot be precisely identified. But there is more money going to this area all the time and that is not cost-neutral expenditure. When it comes to transferring the hospital to community, one cannot always tell whether one is going to spend more in that locality or less. I will not go in great detail into the engaging description by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of the old coach being replaced.
Before assuming that it is automatically more expensive outside for the great majority of patients, I ask hon. Members to remember that about 40 per cent. of the expenditure in a large hospital is not in direct patient care. That percentage is the cost of the maintenance of the buildings and support services and so on. If the ratio of one to one staff attention required in the community is going to be greater, a certain amount of money which may have been wasted on old fabric, will be released to finance personal care.

Mr. Norris: Given that 40 per cent. of the cost of institutional care is not directly related to patients, surely the relevant point is that bridging finance is not merely the provision of capital to buy small houses before the receipt from the old institution. It must also take account of the fact that diminishing numbers in a large institution will still have to be catered for while adequate services are provided in the community, and that will be a substantially longer bridging operation which will have a substantial ramp on both sides.

Mr. Clarke: The bridging argument entered my exchanges with the Select Committee and is again reflected in the report. I accept that in the loosest sense of the term, bridging must look at the capital and revenue needs. We need a mechanism that can cope with that.
I know that the Select Committee feels strongly about this, and I should like to explain what the regions are now doing about it. The role of the regions is to allocate resources to the change in policy. The purpose in allocating resources should be to enable the health authorities to close down the institutions, disperse the patients and to buy the service required for those patients from whichever area is best. One must therefore decide how much money will be transferred with each patient.
In a sense, that will be a patient's entitlement to cover care in the community. One will have to decide how much money will be transferred to another district health authority, if that is where the patient comes from; to a local authority, if its social services department is to provide the care; or to a voluntary body, such as MIND. That will enable those organisations to buy the service required.
As far as I can see, all regional health authorities are now beginning to build up their own arrangements for precisely that mechanism of transferring funds in order to buy the services that patients require. I do not have time to describe what each and every region has done, but the hon. Member for Leeds, West cited the example of the £14,000 per place being given to MIND.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) criticised the amount being contemplated by the north-west region. That region appears to have an extremely good system of transferring funds with the patient, and it will pay a local authority, such as Manchester city, for providing services. At the moment, it is paying £11,300 for each patient, because that is the average cost incurred. That may not be


right, and the average cost may not be sufficient for a heavily-dependent patient. What is needed — I believe that the north-west region will look at this with the local authorities — is a more sophisticated mechanism for deciding how much each patient will cost in each place.
That much is already being done by regions. If we have a central bridging fund, and given that the Government will build it up presumably by putting money into it out of the total Health Service allocation, one is really saying that centrally we shall try to achieve this bridging over and above what the regions are already doing. I am not sure whether that is desirable.
I did not close my mind about that, and I do not do so now. For the last three or more years since I have been Minister, I have been saying that I would look at any cast iron proposal that demonstrated that bridging finance was required for capital or revenue. But that must be a well thought-out scheme requiring genuine bridging finance where money was needed up front to complete the closure of an institution. That would release the funds which would pick up the finance in the future, thereby enabling central finance to go down.
I more or less told the Select Committee and others that by some means or other we would find the finance for such a well-presented scheme. No such scheme has ever been presented to the Government, and no locality is cited by the Select Committee where such a proposal is thought to be necessary or possible.
I shall look at any such proposal to see whether the claim is justified or excessive, but it is important that the central contribution should fall away at the end just as it builds up at the front. I shall also see why the present regional mechanisms are not coping with this, although I believe that most regional health authorities would claim that they could cope over the strategic planning period. I do not reject the idea outright.
I remain to be persuaded that a worthwhile use for such a scheme is likely to be forthcoming. I have not left myself time to deal with all the other finance we are providing: the huge increase in the funds going to joint finance; the opportunity we have taken to enable care-in-the community money to be transferred timelessly to local authorities; our initiative on getting mentally handicapped children out of hospital, a matter on which I feel as strongly as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. We must complete the job on which there has been a great deal of achievement over the last three years.
I remain enthusiastic about care in the community. I trust that the Select Committee will propagate the policy, point out its advantage to the public, campaign for it with enthusiasm and combine that with their criticism and their scepticism. I think we will all find that we will make worthwhile advances on behalf of the patients in our hospitals.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, the Question was deferred, pursuant to Order [4 July].

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions and the other Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining Estimates appointed for consideration this day.

CLASS VII, VOTE I

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £1,151,288,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services.

CLASS VII, VOTE 2

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £19,505,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing administration, including rent officers, rent assessment panels, and grant in aid to the Housing Corporation; housing management and mobility; grants to voluntary organisations concerned with the homeless; and contributions towards the work of the National Federation of Housing Associations.

CLASS VIII, VOTE 2

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £86,176,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on other environmental services including grants in aid and international subscriptions, on grants in aid to the British Waterways Board and Development Commission, on bridgeworks and on developing Civil Defence water services, and a contribution to the Lord Mayor of Bradford's Appeal Fund.

CLASS VIII, VOTE 3

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £176,464,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on derelict land reclamation, the urban programme and grants in aid for Urban Development Corporations.

CLASS VIII, VOTE 5

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £86,300,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of Me Environment on central administration, including royal commissions, committees etc.; payments in connection with licence fees and environmental research and surveys including housing, building and civil engineering research.

CLASS XIV, VOTE 1

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £367,125,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure (partly recoverable), including loans by the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment on acquisitions, public building work and accommodation services, etc., for civil purposes in the United Kingdom.

CLASS XI, VOTE 1

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £5,168,144,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on the provision of services under


the national health service in England, on other health services including a grant in aid and on certain other services including research and services for the disabled.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Commitees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

SEA FISHERIES

That the Fish Producers' Organizations (Formation Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 987), dated 1st July 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved. — [Mr. Mather.]

Question agreed to.

Housing (West Lewisham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Mather.]

Mr. John Maples: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping you up late to discuss certain aspects of the housing problems in West Lewisham. My hon. Friend understands how important they are. From a previous incarnation as a Lambeth councillor, he will understand many of the problems in Lewisham. It is a fairly typical inner London borough which combines the leafy suburbs of the south with serious problems of urban decay and deprivation in the north. A lot of the housing is old, certainly pre-war, built in the 1930s, some of it in the 1940s and quite a lot of it even before 1919. We also have problems with multi-occupation estates and high-rise blocks built in the 1960s.
In the time available, I should like to look at the capital housing budget for the borough. The basic HIP allocation for Lewisham has fallen from £29 million in 1980–81 to just over £20 million this year — a fall in real terms of about a half. If one looks at the total capital spending, which includes receipts from sales and one or two other balancing items, one finds a similar picture. It has fallen from £32 million in 1980–81 to £30 million last year and £21·6 million this year — a fall of more than 50 per cent. over five years and of nearly one third from last year to this year.
The aspect to which I ask my hon. Friend to address himself is the biggest problem presented by the capital repairs and improvements needing to be done to many council properties in the 1960 estates-and pre-war houses. Reductions in the budget have meant that those essential works are not being done. To some extent, the position has been ameliorated by the proceeds from the sale of council houses. They contributed £5 million to Lewisham's capital expenditure last year, but this year the contribution will be only about £2 million, despite the fact that the council has about £8 million in the bank from sales in previous years.
There is no question but that Lewisham council has dragged is feet over the right to buy and has not been an enthusiastic seller. It is also fair to say that much of its remaining stock will not be sold without some inmaginative new initiatives on the part of the Government rather than on the part of the council and that the restrictions on being able to spend 20 per cent of those proceeds will remove what little incentive there is to a council like Lewisham to sell its properties.
I should like to spend a few minutes on the question of essential repair and improvement work that is not being done. The council in Lewisham owns about 43,000 houses and has sold about 2,000. I think that it would be fair to accept that for the foreseeable future it will remain a major landlord. It is therefore incumbent on it to keep its housing stock at a reasonable standard. It is in duty bound, surely, to protect the value of public assets by maintaining those values, to maximise its income from them and to reduce the number of difficult-to-let properties which arise, not always but sometimes, through a lack of capital expenditure. Essential work on both capital repairs and rehabilitation is being postponed. Roofs needing replacement or renewal, houses that have not been rewired for 50 years, and concrete cladding that is crumbling on


tower blocks are all examples of capital repairs that need to be done. Rehabilitation accounts for some of the empty properties. More importantly, some of the environmental improvements to an estate can make it easier to let and maximise its income and can encourage people to buy their flats.
There are revenue consequences to these capital savings. The capital expenditure reductions appear to be a saving, but often the result of not doing a capital repair is that current repairs have to be done. If the roof is not replaced, it has to be patch repaired, perhaps once a year, until the capital repair is done. That costs money, and on top of that is the inescapable fact that if a capital repair is not done this year it will cost more to do it next year, and if it is postponed next year it will cost more to do it the year after. There are some false economies in what appears to be happening.
All of this also militates against the desire of tenants to buy their own property, because they are less likely to do so if the capital repairs that should be done are not being done. If they are asked to buy places that are in a bad condition, they are unlikely to do so, whereas if their estate has environmental improvements, or housing that has been brought up to standard, they are more likely to buy.
Lewisham has many houses that were built in the 1930s and 1940s, and many 1960s estates. A proper repair and improvement programme would maintain the value, maximise the income and facilitate sales of such estates.
In the owner-occupied sector, the picture on improvement grants is not encouraging. Although in this year's capital expenditure there is a provision of about £2 million for improvement grants, it was committed last year. Since then, 3,000 applications for discretionary grants have been turned down. The Government and their supporters rightly pride themselves on the enormous advance in the home improvement programme, but it is worth bearing in mind that one of the consequences of the Budget is that there will not be a single new discretionary grant this year.
The problem is even worse on some of the transferred GLC estates, because of the repairs that need doing to those and the consequences of the HIP allocation for the GLC. Lewisham compulsorily took on 13,400 GLC properties, one of the largest numbers. It did not want to do so, but it got them under a statutory instrument that was passed by the Government. It contained a repair and improvement guarantee by the GLC to put those properties at a certain standard by 1992.
The boroughs that took those properties did so without surveys, but relying on the guarantee, which was a major and vital element in the transfer. It is clear that the base of the financial arrangements for making the transfer was to be that no undue disadvantage should fall on the ratepayers or the tenants of the borough that was taking the properties. Surely it was implicit in the imposition of a guarantee such as the one imposed on the GLC by that statutory instrument that the GLC would financially be able to fulfil that commitment.
The GLC's renovation strategy for its properties identifies £1,000 million worth of work in the next seven years—about £140 million a year. This year, the GLC's HIP allocation is £67 million, and in Lewisham one can see the results of this in a repair programme that is clearly behind schedule. The stock that was taken over in Lewisham was worse than the average GLC stock. Urgent repair and health and safety work is being postponed.
Worse than that, some of the costs that should be falling on the GLC are falling on the borough's HIP allocation, because it has had to do emergency programme repairs that are not being done by the GLC. This year, the GLC will spend about £6 million on capital improvements in the borough, whereas it is clear that the figure needs to be nearer £12 million if that programme of improvements is to be fulfilled, and the guarantee redeemed by 1992.
Of the 1,605 GLC properties transferred to Lewisham in my constituency, 470 are on the Sydenham Hill estate. It is a well-situated estate in a nice area, is well landscaped and looks good from the outside. Five or six years ago, if one had asked the tenants what they thought of it, they would have said that it was a pretty nice place in which to live and work. However, as a result of the way that the estate was built in the 1960s, almost all of the fiats inside are miserably cold and damp in the winter.
People are living in cold, and unattractive conditions. Outside the crumbling cladding is dangerous for people walking below it. The GLC consultants identified £4 million worth of capital repairs that needed to be done to the concrete, heating, window frames and so on. The proposal for this year's spending is about £1·8 million—nearly half the sum.
In fact, the GLC will spend £100,000 on repairing the concrete and £75,000 on the heating, and the Lewisham council will make up the spending with another £200,000 which will enable central heating to be installed in 138—or just over a quarter—of the units. That is a total of £375,000 against £4 million worth of work which needs to be done.
Not only will tenants continue to suffer and have to put up with their cold, damp flats for another winter, but it will affect the possibility of selling the flats, the let-ability and the income to be derived from them. It will also affect revenue expenditure. In the long term, it will cost more to install central heating, to renew the windows and to deal with the falling concrete in two or three years' time when conditions are worse.
Tenants are worried about what will happen after the abolition of the GLC. We are told that the GLC's HIP allocation will be divided between the boroughs, but it is not yet clear upon what basis. It would be unfair to divide it on the basis of the general needs index, which is how the London HIP allocation is generally divided. Lewishani took nearly 10 per cent. of the GLC houses stock when it took 13,500, whereas Sutton took none. It would be unfair if Sutton received part of the GLC's HIP allocation.
The fair way is for the GLC's HIP allocation, whatever it is, to be allocated to those boroughs which took GLC stock specifically earmarked to fulfil the GLC's commitment. The current GLC HIP allocation will not be enough, however it is divided, to redeem that commitment to put the properties into a proper condition by 1992.
How will the residuary body's ability to generate capital be utilised? Will it have the power to utilise capital receipts to repair the properties by 1992? Will it be able to enter the equivalent of the GLC's HIP allocation, or will those capital receipts not be able to redeem that promise?
Capital spending on housing in Lewisham has fallen by 50 per cent. in real terms in the past five years. A major result is the postponement of major work. That has affected sales, let-ability, repair costs and the income from properties. Repairs will cost more in the future.
The GLC has special problems. The HIP allocation is not sufficient to redeem the promise made in the statutory


instrument to put properties in a proper condition. Considerable problems might emerge from the abolition of the GLC and the reallocation of HIP money to the boroughs.
I cannot help concluding that once again current overruns have resulted in capital cuts. That is a false equation. The potponement of essential work is a false economy and will cost more.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) for giving us the opportunity to discuss housing in West Lewisham. I know from correspondence how deep is his interest in housing. He has rightly raised a number of issues about his constituents, not least about the arrangements after the GLC is abolished on 1 April next year. This evening my hon. Friend gave a perceptive analysis of some of the issues, and I should like to respond to some of his anxieties.
I shall comment first on the general level of capital spending and the provision that we have made for capital expenditure by local authorities, which in the current year will be over £4 billion, a considerable sum by any standards. I need not re-emphasise to my hon. Friend the importance of the Government keeping within their overall figures, which are central to the Government's economic strategy. If expenditure were allowed to rise significantly above the level that I have outlined, pressure would be put on interest rates and there would be the risk of growth and investment in the private sector being impeded. In the long run nobody would be advantaged if there were any interruption to the recovery.
Within the figures, the initial housing investment programme allocations made to local authorities for the current year amounted to almost £1·6 billion, and London's share was almost £483 million. In addition to the initial housing investment programme allocations made for this year, those authorities which complied with our request for voluntary restraint on expenditure in 1984–85 are eligible for 5 per cent. supplementary allocations. On top of that, authorities facing particular difficulties because of the implications of the Housing Defects Act have been invited to make bids for supplementary allocations.
As my hon. Friend said, Lewisham's allocation for the current year is £20·3 million. It has made no application to us in connection with the Housing Defects Act, but it could be entitled to a 5 per cent. supplementary allocation when the final figures for 1984–85 are known. As my hon. Friend pointed out, Lewisham can supplement its HIP allocation through the use of the prescribed proportion of capital receipts. While this year we have had to reduce it to 20 per cent. generally, it is still possible for authorities to augment their allocations in that way by significant amounts.
There has been some misunderstanding about what that reduction has meant. I hope my hon. Friend recognises that we have not deprived local authorities of their capital receipts. We have simply spread the use of such receipts over a longer period.
Within the overall system, local authorities are free to determine their own capital programmes in accordance

with local needs and priorities. Lewisham must, therefore, determine its 1985–86 programme in that way. I do not deny that the reduction in the prescribed proportion, and the allocation that Lewisham has, means that the council must take some difficult decisions about priorities. However, those are decisions which Lewisham is better able to take than are the Government.
One must move away from the idea that throwing public money at Lewisham's problems will solve the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. He displayed a keen interest in the idea of getting private sector finance to make faster progress in tackling the problems that he described, and any private finance is additional to the council's allocation.
The council can sell empty properties, either improved or unimproved, and it can initiate low-cost home ownership schemes. If existing council tenants are given access to such schemes, rented housing is then released for those who need it. My Department's urban housing renewal unit, which I shall describe more fully, will be happy to help.
It is crucial that Lewisham manages its stock properly. At the end of March 1984, Lewisham's rent arrears, of almost £6·75 million, represented 21 per cent. of the total rent collectable. In the last few years, not only has the council not increased its rents in line with increases recommended by the Department to take account of inflation, but it has not made any rent increases at all since 1982–83, although I understand that it has recently given notice that there will be a small increase from August. That means that the local authority has been denied resources of which other authorities in London have availed themselves.
From the point of view of other indicators of management competence, on 1 April 1984 Lewisham reported that of the 42,000 council-owned dwellings, 7,000 were difficult to let and 2,123 were empty, of which 637 had been empty for more than a year. I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moymihan), who, I know, has serious reservations about the competence of Lewisham's housing department.
The number of empty properties —5 per cent. of the total stock — must be a source of concern, as is the number of properties empty for more than a year. Recently, my Department issued a circular to all local authorities giving detailed guidance on measures to reduce the numbers of their empty dwellings, and I hope that my hon. Friends will use what influence they have with the local authority to persuade it to adopt some of those initiatives. There has been a substantial increase over the previous year of properties in Lewisham which are difficult to let. The total now represents about one sixth of all the council-owned stock in the borough.
The Government are concerned about the growing number of difficult-to-manage estates in Lewisham and throughout the country. We are worried about rising rent arrears and the number of council houses standing empty. For that reason we have established recently within the Department the urban housing renewal unit to help local authorities tackle rundown estates. The problems of these estates are becoming increasingly varied and intractable and the unit, by drawing on the experience and expertise of local authorities, the housing services advisory unit, the priority estates projects and consultants, will be able to offer expert, independent and individual assessments of local authorities' difficult estates. The unit will be able


also to suggest a package of measures to deal with them and seek to encourage a variety of different approaches, including disposals to the private sector and locally based estate management initiatives.
We have already made an approach to Lewisham suggesting a meeting with the unit. I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to persuade the council to respond positively and to put aside any political dogma in the interests of making real progress with the tenants whose interests both my hon. Friends represent. The unit will help the authorities to maximise private funding opportunities. In addition, it will be able to influence the direction of public sector resources where this proves to be necessary.
The figures that I have outlined of Lewisham's 42,000 stock show that 1,550 units were unfit, that 5,260 while fit lacked basic amenities and that 865 had amenities but needed renovation. This is serious. To get more detailed information on the condition of the housing stock generally and the expenditure that it is necessary to put it into good condition, my Department has written to all housing authorities. Lewisham has been unable to supply complete estimates, but the council has provided some useful information which we are processing along with information from other authorities. At a national level, this information will enable us to get a better understanding of the resources that are needed to tackle the renovation problem and will inform the continuing discussions about the public infrastructure. These discussions are taking place within the forum of the National Economic Development Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West mentioned improvement grants and the policy adopted by Lewisham council. Local authorities are able to approve discretionary grants in such circumstances as they think fit. They have complete discretion in these matters. They can decide whether to make grants and, if they do so decide, at what rate they should be. At one time we understood that Lewisham was thinking of making no new discretionary grants in the current year. That would be regrettable, because, of almost 50,000 privately owned dwellings in the borough, over 5,000 are unfit, over 1,000 are fit but lack basic amenities and almost 11,000 are in need of renovation. I understand that the council has decided recently to introduce a small discretionary grant programme for special cases where, for example, there is financial hardship. Applications are now being received from disabled residents.
I take up my hon. Friend's remarks about the transferred stock and the position that will arise after 1 April 1986. He referred to the housing that was transferred from the GLC to Lewisham council, which comprised 13,415 units, and the arrangements for renovating these properties after the GLC's abolition. I understand his concern and the concern of those who live in the blocks. There has been a good deal of propaganda from the GLC and its friends implying that the GLC's programme to renovate this stock will not continue after abolition.
Much of the propaganda has drawn a veil over the GLC's track record. My hon. Friend will know that his constituents on the Sydenham Hill estate are alarmed about the poor housing conditions there. The Government's contention is that the boroughs, as the primary housing authorities in London, will be better able to carry through this programme of repairs successfully. Much of this

alarmist talk fails to recognise the arrangements that we are to introduce to allow the boroughs to renovate this stock when they inherit this responsibility on abolition.
My hon. Friend referred to some guarantees. I am not sure who gave the guarantees to the tenants of the GLC transferred stock. The Government made it clear that they could not underwrite any GLC commitment to bring the stock to a satisfactory condition by 1992. We have made it clear that the GLC's housing investment programme allocation would be allocated to the boroughs after abolition. The resources will not be lost to London. London's entire housing capital allocation will be distributed among the boroughs, including the share which would otherwise have been given to the GLC.
My hon. Friend suggested that some of the allocations should be earmarked, and my Department is considering this. We have already asked Lewisham and other boroughs to make a bid for 1986–87 which will reflect the responsibilities which they will inherit from the GLC. The distribution of the allocations will take account of the expenditure liabilities. It is also our intention that virtually all the prescribed proportion of housing capital receipts will be distributed in proportion to the housing capital allocations including the receipts associated with the mortgage account.
It may be that the London Residuary Body, which will be responsible for the GLC's mortgage account, will be able to unlock further resources to London by re-financing ex-GLC mortgages. There will be no net loss of resources to London as a result of abolition. The boroughs will have the advantage of receiving those resources directly and accordingly will be able to manage their own programmes according to their own priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham. West spoke mainly about capital. We do not intend that the boroughs should suffer the loss of the revenue assistance which they currently receive from the GLC on the transferred stock. We will ensure that the broad financial effect of these payments is maintained after abolition by adjustment to Lewisham council's entitlement to rate support grant.
These arrangements will cover the obligatory payments; currently made by the GLC and will take account of the revenue consequences of future renovation works to transferred stock which would otherwise have fallen to the GLC. It is important to recognise that these arrangements will apply irrespective of authorities' current spending position in relation to their grant-related expenditure assessment or their targets — should we continue to have targets.
I hope my hon. Friend will see that the housing investment programme allocations and the changes made to the capital receipts rules for 1985–86 were essential to ensure that capital spending did not exceed the public expenditure plans and that the level of public sector borrowing was kept on track. In the longer term, we are looking again at the system and at possible improvements. We would like to achieve a better match between our duty to control the overall level of capital spending and borrowing in the national economy and the need at local level for a firm basis for future planning. Consultations with the local authorities have already started.
Within the constraints on resources, the best use must be made of what is available. We are improving our knowledge of the condition of local authority housing stock and the need for expenditure on it. The recently issued advice on empty dwellings and the establishment of


the urban housing renewal unit are positive steps forward as are our proposals for a new approach to home improvement, which were outlined in a recent Green Paper.
My hon. Friend has argued forcefully in support of Lewisham's housing investment programme submission for 1986–87. The council's bid should be with my Department shortly and officials will meet representatives of the council — probably in the early autumn — to discuss the submission in detail. Before the allocation for 1986–87 is made, we shall give very careful consideration

to everything that Lewisham council has to tell us and anything that my hon. Friends have to say. Full weight will be given to all the points that have been made tonight, including the need for continuing investment on the former GLC estates. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West and for Lewisham, East will use what influence they have to persuade Lewisham council to broaden its horizon and to look at some of the innovative solutions which are already being adopted by other London authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o' clock.